Speed of Light Experiments

[Klaynos]

Did you read the links I provided?

[cos]

Did you read the links I provided?

Assuming that was addressed to me - whilst I appreciate your having gone to the trouble of providing same I neither have the time nor the inclination to read every link supplied in response to my messages.

 

If there is any relevant matter raised in said links it would be preferable from my point of view for responders to specify such material in order that it can be discussed directly.

[Klaynos]

The second is the most relevant it is a review of papers and experiments which answers your first question directly. The first is more of a general why MMX type experiments and extensions are evidence for SR in different frames.

 

I would be copying and pasting the whole thing...

[apricimo]

So to tentatively summarize:

 

de Sitter binary star experiment showed that the speed of light is constant?

 

I don't think that if you measure the speed of light on earth you can say you are in a different frame of reference when you measure the speed of light in June and then in January. The source of light that is measured is the sun so no matter what time of year the fram of reference is technically the same. Is that right?

[IM Egdall]

So to tentatively summarize:

 

de Sitter binary star experiment showed that the speed of light is constant?

 

I don't think that if you measure the speed of light on earth you can say you are in a different frame of reference when you measure the speed of light in June and then in January. The source of light that is measured is the sun so no matter what time of year the fram of reference is technically the same. Is that right?

 

First point. Yes, the deSitter binary star experminet showed that the speed of light is constant.

 

Second point. I think the measurements taken on Earth in June and January were of light from a distant star. Say in June the Earth was moving in its orbit around the Sun towards the star. So then in January it was moving away from the star. The idea is to measure the speed of the light from the star at both times. And it measures as the same speed in June and in January. This means that the motion of the Earth (sone 60,000 miles an hour wrt to Sun) has no effect on the speed of the light from the star. In other words, the speed of light is unaffected by the speed of the observer (on Earth). Or as you put it, the speed of light is constant.

 

Oh, and the Earth is NOT in the same inertial reference frame on January and June. The two reference frames are going in opposite directions. An "inertial" reference frame is one which is going in uniform motion, that is at a constant speed and in a constant direction. Each unique inertial reference frame has a unique constant speed and/or a unique constant direction.

[cos]

First point. Yes, the deSitter binary star experminet showed that the speed of light is constant.

The de Sitter binary star experiment was initially accepted as showing the constancy of light speed until it was realized that the system is surrounded by a gas cloud which, on the basis of QM's absorption/emission factor, invalidated such 'proofs'.

 

Second point. I think the measurements taken on Earth in June and January were of light from a distant star. Say in June the Earth was moving in its orbit around the Sun towards the star. So then in January it was moving away from the star. The idea is to measure the speed of the light from the star at both times. And it measures as the same speed in June and in January. This means that the motion of the Earth (sone 60,000 miles an hour wrt to Sun) has no effect on the speed of the light from the star. In other words, the speed of light is unaffected by the speed of the observer (on Earth). Or as you put it, the speed of light is constant.

The only way to accurately determine the speed of light emitted by that star is to determine its one way speed however it seems that our ability to do so is still contentious.

 

 

 

 

 

The second is the most relevant it is a review of papers and experiments which answers your first question directly. The first is more of a general why MMX type experiments and extensions are evidence for SR in different frames.

I'm afraid that I'm adamant that experiments that are carried out in a gravitational field and which also involve various rates of acceleration in several different directions cannot be claimed to be evidence of SR's inertial RF claims.

 

Whilst I fully appreciate that acceleration/gravity can be 'written into' SR we end up with GR so there seems to be little point in that exercise.

 

I would be copying and pasting the whole thing...

One or two, possibly three, extracts may have been adequate however I am of the opinion that nothing exhibits greater support for the application of the MMX as 'evidence' for SR than my previously (twice) referred to Michelson's appearance on tape wherein he proudly proclaims same.

Edited January 27, 2011 by cos