functionally faster than light.

[Didymus]

It stands to reason that the function of light being produced expels it at a certain speed, thus light would move at a constant speed relative to it's source. I've yet to see convincing evidence that shows a single object capable of simultaneously moving through different levels of compressed space depending on how different observers may be moving... I.e. the Doppler effect's change in frequency being explained as a change in wavelength as opposed to speed relative to that wave. A given photon will have a different redshift based on your speed relative to it's source... Pretty obvious that this light is moving slower relative to us than blueshifted light.

[ACG52]

Pretty obvious that this light is moving slower relative to us than blueshifted light.

 

 

Except this is not what experiment and observation tell us, so the 'pretty obvious' is 'pretty wrong'.

[Didymus]

Oh, what a stirring counterpoint. My entire viewpoint on life has now changed now that some anonymous poster claims that some anonymous experiment proved it one time.

 

 

.... Mind sharing any details? I'm not talking aether wind....

[swansont]

 

time dilation supposedly happens due to relative speed, agreed? And neither frame of reference is preferred over the other.

 

Do you agree with both points?

 

I.e. you don't assert that time dilation is some inertial aspect of the acceleration process?

 

Relative speed, if we are ignoring gravity.

 

Oh, what a stirring counterpoint. My entire viewpoint on life has now changed now that some anonymous poster claims that some anonymous experiment proved it one time.

 

 

.... Mind sharing any details? I'm not talking aether wind....

 

It's your claim. What evidence do you have to support it? It should be easy, considering that it's "pretty obvious"

[Delta1212]

Are you contending that blue light is faster than red light? Because if they travel at the same speed, and that speed is constant in relation to the source, then there shouldn't be any Doppler effect.

[ACG52]

Oh, what a stirring counterpoint. My entire viewpoint on life has now changed now that some anonymous poster claims that some anonymous experiment proved it one time.

 

 

.... Mind sharing any details? I'm not talking aether wind....

Before you break aether wind...

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

[Didymus]

Are you contending that blue light is faster than red light? Because if they travel at the same speed, and that speed is constant in relation to the source, then there shouldn't be any Doppler effect.

Of course not. Like the tones in sound, color is perceived by a change in frequency. Frequency being a function of wavelength vs. The speed at which these waves pass by (or that you pass by these waves). If you're on a train and pass anything making a constant sound, it will seem to switch to a lower pitch when you pass it because, when approaching it, your speed relative to that wave is higher and thus the frequency is higher.... The wave doesn't care that you're there. When you pass, the wavelength stays the same, but the tone will go down relative to your speed away from the source of that sound. (i use a moving reference frame instead of a moving source to account for a stationary medium). Basic elementary school physics.

 

But when we see celestial objects traveling away from us, their light spectrum will be shifted toward a lower frequency. Objects moving toward us will have their entire spectrum shifted toward a higher frequency. ... The simple solution would be that this light is doing it's thing, not caring who is observing it. It's wavelength is what it is... And we see the frequency change because we're moving relative to it and thus it is approaching us at a speed other than C, depending on our speed relative to it's source.

 

SR Dictates that light moves at a constant speed in all frames of reference and thus the speed of the wave can not be altered. This is why the wavelength must be changed, which is the whole point of the theory of spacial dilation.

 

The down side is that if the speed of light is constant and already at this maximum speed... Time is already stopped and space is already infinitely compressed from it's frame of reference.... Then why would our motion relative to it cause it to experience "more compressed space?"

 

It doesn't hold water. Swanson... You ask for evidence... The Doppler effect is more than sufficient. SR is the one with the burden of proof to overthrow logic.... Without basing this proof on an experiment where this light is absorbed and re-emitted from a new source.

[ACG52]

Of course not. Like the tones in sound, color is perceived by a change in frequency. Frequency being a function of wavelength vs. The speed at which these waves pass by (or that you pass by these waves). If you're on a train and pass anything making a constant sound, it will seem to switch to a lower pitch when you pass it because, when approaching it, your speed relative to that wave is higher and thus the frequency is higher.... The wave doesn't care that you're there. When you pass, the wavelength stays the same, but the tone will go down relative to your speed away from the source of that sound. (i use a moving reference frame instead of a moving source to account for a stationary medium). Basic elementary school physics.

 

But when we see celestial objects traveling away from us, their light spectrum will be shifted toward a lower frequency. Objects moving toward us will have their entire spectrum shifted toward a higher frequency. ... The simple solution would be that this light is doing it's thing, not caring who is observing it. It's wavelength is what it is... And we see the frequency change because we're moving relative to it and thus it is approaching us at a speed other than C, depending on our speed relative to it's source.

 

SR Dictates that light moves at a constant speed in all frames of reference and thus the speed of the wave can not be altered. This is why the wavelength must be changed, which is the whole point of the theory of spacial dilation.

 

The down side is that if the speed of light is constant and already at this maximum speed... Time is already stopped and space is already infinitely compressed from it's frame of reference.... Then why would our motion relative to it cause it to experience "more compressed space?"

 

It doesn't hold water. Swanson... You ask for evidence... The Doppler effect is more than sufficient. SR is the one with the burden of proof to overthrow logic.... Without basing this proof on an experiment where this light is absorbed and re-emitted from a new source.

 

Given that this directly contradicts over a hundred years of experimental results (here, I'll spoon feed them to you again http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html ) and that you seem to be relying on something you're calling 'logic', this simply is a case of relativity denial due to incredulity. i.e I can't understand it, so it can't be.

[Didymus]

That's a pretty long list of citation with no explanation. I'm not going to look them up one by one. Find one experiment which conclusively shows the uniformity of the speed of light. Not a list of textbooks that make the claim by quoting people who subscribe to the theory...I don't care about popular opinion. Do you know of a single experiment that you can summarize?

 

If it has such a long history, you must know one or two that can be functionally explained... Not just a couple names listed saying "we proved this, trust us."

 

That's a pretty long list of citation with no explanation. I'm not going to look them up one by one. Find one experiment which conclusively shows the uniformity of the speed of light. Not a list of textbooks that make the claim by quoting people who subscribe to the theory...I don't care about popular opinion. Do you know of a single experiment that you can summarize?

 

If it has such a long history, you must know one or two that can be functionally explained... Not just a couple names listed saying "we proved this, trust us."

[mooeypoo]

No point beating that horse anymore. Your faith is quite strong, so, next problem:

!

Moderator Note

 

Before we go to the next problem, you should go over our rules. We're here to discuss science, and while doubting and being skeptical of accepted scientific theories will not get you banned, being disrespectful will.

 

Asking for references and then declaring you will not go over them because it's too many fits the bill on the same complaint, Didymus.

 

People are taking time to participate in this discussion, answer your questions and look up references. Give them the respect you want in return, please.

 

[ACG52]

That's a pretty long list of citation with no explanation. I'm not going to look them up one by one. Find one experiment which conclusively shows the uniformity of the speed of light. Not a list of textbooks that make the claim by quoting people who subscribe to the theory...I don't care about popular opinion. Do you know of a single experiment that you can summarize?

 

If it has such a long history, you must know one or two that can be functionally explained... Not just a couple names listed saying "we proved this, trust us."

 

 

 

If you're not going to bother to look at anything which answers your request because you're too lazy, and wouldn't understand what you're reading, I'll simply put you down as another relativity denying crank.

[Didymus]

I apologize for the "faith" quip, money. That was unnecessary. I'll retract that when I get home and can edit the post from my computer.

 

I'm fine with going over walls of text as long as they're on topic. When people have asked my opinion, I've explained it in clear, simple terms. When I say "i've researched H&K and M&M and E&R, etc and find their tests inconclusive because of some oversights... Simply posting a link with a citation to those same experiments isn't exactly participating in the conversation in a meaningful way.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Didymus

[swansont]

That's a pretty long list of citation with no explanation. I'm not going to look them up one by one. Find one experiment which conclusively shows the uniformity of the speed of light. Not a list of textbooks that make the claim by quoting people who subscribe to the theory...I don't care about popular opinion. Do you know of a single experiment that you can summarize?

 

If it has such a long history, you must know one or two that can be functionally explained... Not just a couple names listed saying "we proved this, trust us."

 

That's a pretty long list of citation with no explanation. I'm not going to look them up one by one. Find one experiment which conclusively shows the uniformity of the speed of light. Not a list of textbooks that make the claim by quoting people who subscribe to the theory...I don't care about popular opinion. Do you know of a single experiment that you can summarize?

 

If it has such a long history, you must know one or two that can be functionally explained... Not just a couple names listed saying "we proved this, trust us."

 

Ever use a radio in a moving car? The only way you get an electromagnetic wave in Maxwell's equations is if c is invariant. There's a mistaken notion that constant c was created solely for relativity— it wasn't. It's already present in E&M; Einstein simply investigated the implications for mechanics. If c is not invariant you don't just break relativity. You break E&M as well.

 

Your position, in addition to the argument from incredulity ACG52 pointed out, is that you can't even be bothered to investigate the evidence.

[Klaynos]

If c is not invariant you break em so badly that the stars would not shine. They do shine and their spectra are predictable. Em works, c is invariant.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

3 observer example split off to reduce the confusion level http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73578-3-part-relativity-problem-split-from-functionally-faster-than-light/

[Didymus]

You suggest that radio waves moving at C relative to it's source would simply stop working if they hit the car's antenna at C+/-60 mph? According to what?

 

And I don't mind researching your references.... I just don't want to have to dig through a dozen irrelevant papers because a person doesn't want to have to post anything specific. Especially when the wall of references is just names I'd have to hunt down as opposed to readable reports.

[ACG52]

I just don't want to have to dig through a dozen irrelevant papers because a person doesn't want to have to post anything specific

 

You wanted experimental confirmation of the invariance of light. I did the research you were too lazy to do, and spoon fed you the links. All you had to do was read and understand them, but I guess that's where it fell apart. I didn't realize that not only did you need it spoon fed you, but you wanted it to go through a blender first.

[Didymus]

Acg... The reason you're having problems gaining credibility is that you're far overconfident in your bluffs. You're attempting to gain credibility among your peers by finding ways to insult the intelligence of an unpopular person, thereby implying a greater intelligence for yourself. Typical bully psychology where your own self doubts cause you to lash out to gain acceptance.

 

I forgive you. But I suggest against bluffing in conversations with me. You did not "do the research and spoon feed it" to anyone. You Google'd "SR experiments" and posted the link with some condescending remarks to bolster your self esteem.

 

Did you actually read the link you provided? Because I did. I specifically asked for examples of experiments legitimately supporting C's invarience OTHER THAN aether wind experiments. Your link shows an elementary acceptance of SR "because M&M proved it."

 

If you would like to contribute to the conversation by communicating your own understanding... I would appreciate that. If all you can do is regurgitate the popular opinion and give no support as to why... I'm sorry... But you won't impress anyone here. At least I hope not

 

 

Anyone else want to take a crack at it? Explain a single experiment that supports light's invarience that didn't involve significant inherent flaws?

 

Or... Does anyone want to answer the question posed a couple pages back: does SR's portion of time dilation occurs because of relative speed or acceleration? This seems simple, but I need someone to pick an answer they'd like to stick to.

 

Acg, if it makes you feel better.... Yes, oh great mind of science.... I humbly submit to my lowly place among imperfect man... Still so low in the evolutionary stage where I prefer a direct exchange of ideas instead of your more highly evolved ability to accept thongs on the basis of "the internet says 'they proved it.'"

 

I'm comfortable admitting that.

[elfmotat]

Acg... The reason you're having problems gaining credibility is that you're far overconfident in your bluffs. You're attempting to gain credibility among your peers by finding ways to insult the intelligence of an unpopular person, thereby implying a greater intelligence for yourself. Typical bully psychology where your own self doubts cause you to lash out to gain acceptance.

 

I forgive you. But I suggest against bluffing in conversations with me. You did not "do the research and spoon feed it" to anyone. You Google'd "SR experiments" and posted the link with some condescending remarks to bolster your self esteem.

 

We're just sick of your nonsense, that's all. Do you really think that over a century's worth of physicists are that stupid? Or do you think it's just a little more likely that you're having problems because you don't understand SR?

 

 

 

 

Did you actually read the link you provided? Because I did. I specifically asked for examples of experiments legitimately supporting C's invarience OTHER THAN aether wind experiments. Your link shows an elementary acceptance of SR "because M&M proved it."

 

If you would like to contribute to the conversation by communicating your own understanding... I would appreciate that. If all you can do is regurgitate the popular opinion and give no support as to why... I'm sorry... But you won't impress anyone here. At least I hope not

 

 

Anyone else want to take a crack at it? Explain a single experiment that supports light's invarience that didn't involve significant inherent flaws?

 

How about you take another look around this thread. You've gotten your answer about a dozen times already.

 

 

 

Or... Does anyone want to answer the question posed a couple pages back: does SR's portion of time dilation occurs because of relative speed or acceleration? This seems simple, but I need someone to pick an answer they'd like to stick to.

 

Velocity. Nobody ever said differently.

[Didymus]

Elf-" Do you really think that over a century's worth of physicists are that stupid?"

 

A: Never underestimate man's desire to avoid at all costs thinking for himself. Case in point.... Have you personally looked through the H&K experiment with a critical, scientific mind? Or have you always accepted it because it's commonly accepted? Honestly. How did YOU test it before you put such faith in it to justify mocking others for doing so?

 

B: oh really? I don't think I've ever heard someone claim velocity before! And you don't see anything wrong with this math? What is the velocity of an object that circumnavigates the globe and, after 3 days ends up exactly at his starting point?

 

You sure you don't want to change your answer to relative speed?

[swansont]

You suggest that radio waves moving at C relative to it's source would simply stop working if they hit the car's antenna at C+/-60 mph? According to what?

 

Maxwell's equations. The basis for all of electricity and magnetism. For EM radiation, you have the wave equation, which only gives you the solution if c is invariant.

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

ENOUGH with the personal attacks, guys.

 

Didymus, our previous note(s) still apply. You came to a science forum to discuss science, not to pound your feet on the ground insisting nothing will satisfy you unless we chew it down to manageable levels. Have some decency to respect the people who take the time to participate in the debate and stay away from personal name-calling or jabs.

 

And the rest of you, please don't make things worse by jumping on that same wagon. You guys know better.

 

[Didymus]

Good Swanson. Conversation!

 

What leads you to believe that it's invariant rather than simply negligible? The relation between 186000 miles per second and 60 miles per hour is quite small. What, specifically, would fail were c to be a constant relative only to it's source rather than a constant relative to all frames? Do you suggest that radios would slide down frequencies as the relative speed changed? Because the frequencies certainly do.... Just a matter of attributing this frequency change to relative speed vs wavelength.

 

I'm not dismissing your point.... I'm trying to dig in to it because I see the potential of validity.

 

What specifically would fail? Just the equation? Radio settings (due to frequency shift)? Radio waves themselves? All of electricity? Whatever the extent, what tests justify this claim? Or is it solely based on the math Maxwell predicted?

[elfmotat]

Maxwell's equations. The basis for all of electricity and magnetism. For EM radiation, you have the wave equation, which only gives you the solution if c is invariant.

 

Unless there's a medium which is approximately at rest to the Earth which light travels through at c, dubbed "aether." Of course Michelson-Morley + SR makes this an ad hoc unnecessary assumption that doesn't generalize well to curved spacetimes. Lorentz Ether Theory is perfectly consistent with SR and Maxwell's Equations, but it's incompatible with much of modern physics.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Good Swanson. Conversation!

 

What leads you to believe that it's invariant rather than simply negligible? The relation between 186000 miles per second and 60 miles per hour is quite small. What, specifically, would fail were c to be a constant relative only to it's source rather than a constant relative to all frames? Do you suggest that radios would slide down frequencies as the relative speed changed? Because the frequencies certainly do.... Just a matter of attributing this frequency change to relative speed vs wavelength.

 

I'm not dismissing your point.... I'm trying to dig in to it because I see the potential of validity.

 

What specifically would fail? Just the equation? Radio settings (due to frequency shift)? Radio waves themselves? All of electricity? Whatever the extent, what tests justify this claim? Or is it solely based on the math Maxwell predicted?

The answer is "electrodynamics would fail." If you derive Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, you find that the speed of light is a constant in any reference frame. Remove this restriction and I don't know how you'd solve the equations to get consistent predictions between reference frames.

 

Chapter 12 of Griffiths's Introduction to Electrodynamics is a good primer here.