Re: Speed of Light?

eric reed ( (no email) )
Wed, 11 Aug 1999 23:53:34 GMT

Its been assumed that in view of the many tests that have been performed
that light is indeed constant for all in the same frame of refference, and
changing in energy ( frequency ) via red-blue shift from one frame of
refference to another. relativity assumes that light is constant but we have
a slight catch here, relativity is still theory and not proved, though
relativity is the most accurate we have of the real physics behind the
universe, surely someone will come along as Einstien did to Newton and
re-design our foundation thereof, but until then its all we have. You will
see that light does slow down in view of the tests done after world war II,
where upon early on Eistien theorized light would bend around the sun from a
star on its far side and be observed on Earth, he made a slight blunder and
doubled the quantity it would bend ( 1.27 sec of a arc I think ) as opposed
to half that value, and true enough, during an eclipse it was noted that a
star did have its light bent by such an amount. To make such accurate
measerments they assume the constant speed of light, if light didnt hold
true enough the theorized measurements of the arc would be in disagreement
with their findings...but note as to your question, we can safely assume its
constant in our puny world, however since the universe is expanding, its
unknown if the gravitational constant will stay constant, and if thats not
constant thereof, then we have changes not only in speed of light over the
many millenia, but changes in gravitational attraction between heavenly
bodies as well as changes in angular velocity of rotating bodies..

>From: "Russell Garber" <RussG@mtlusa.com>
>To: Interact@KeelyNet.com
>Subject: Speed of Light?
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 18:48:25 -0400
>
>Please bear with me as sometimes if you think about one thing to long,
>non-sense starts to make sense and vice-versa, but I have never completely
>understood about the Speed of Light being constant. Before going into
>details, I will explain a bit about what I mean. My understanding of this
>is that it is stated that the speed of light is constant in all frames. I
>will give an example to what I mean by all frames using the old person
>riding on train example: A person riding in a train moving at say, 50 mph
>(the actual speed doesn't really matter) throws a baseball towards the
>front of the train at say, 50 mph. To other people on the train the ball
>obviously is moving at 50 mph, but to a person outside the train (on the
>ground not moving) the two speeds add together, and the ball is thus
>travelling near 100 mph. In contrast to this, with the speed of light
>being constant, the speed observed by the people on the train <----- (for
>simplicity sake, lets say that the person on the train had a laser pen, and
>the train was filled with a substance so as the beam could be seen, and
>that the speed of light was slow enough to by observed by the naked eye...
>I know it is a lot to ask, but it doesn't really make a difference, because
>the speed is constant, and the result would be the same, right?) ----->
>would be exactly the same that was observed by the person on the ground.
>Can someone explain the reason for this without statements such as:
>Modern Physics, etc. are based on this and it works out in the
>calculations, etc... and other statements such as that, that don't really
>explain anything, at least not in terms easily understandable. Also, in
>the actual speed of light calculations done, was Earth's rotation speed
>taken into account? Wouldn't the actual speed of light be that which was
>measured here on Earth, plus partially the speed of Earth's rotation on
>it's axis, plus partially the speed that Earth is travelling around the
>sun, plus partially the speed that our Solar System is moving through the
>galaxy, etc...? Has any speed of light measurement ever been done in
>space? Has any speed of light measurements been done on moving platforms,
>with the speed taken in two different frames, that can prove this? This
>has always confused me, and most likely because we are always told, that it
>just is, and that we have to accept it, and thus never being explained in
>easily understood terms. Can someone please explain this using the
>out-of-the-ordinary thinking that is present on this web site, in lay mans
>terms? And please, only stick to the point, and don't pick apart the
>nature of the examples given, etc, as it does not help. Thanks in advance
>for your help.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
> with the body text: leave Interact
> list archives and on line subscription forms are at
> http://keelynet.com/interact/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com