Just like the relative speed between a moving object and the sound waves.
Special Relativity Is Refuted
- Thread starter chinglu
- Start date
Just like the relative speed between a moving object and the sound waves.
Points propagate along lines. The spherical light wave is a surface propagating outward in all directions. It is possible to imagine fictional points moving around that expanding surface in such a way that their y and z coordinates stay the same, and the speed of such a point could be faster than c. Then so what? As long as it is only imaginary points moving faster than light, there's no problem.
So nothing.
More than one person in this thread has already refuted the relevance of your "calculus".
That isn't an example.
It would seem that they should be able to do just that.
The model for absorption and re-emission is a quantum model attempting to explain refractive indexes.., why light slows down passing through a transparent medium. I have never been able to or had anyone provide a credible answer to my original concern regarding the apparent conflicts involving known emission and absorption spectrums of individual elements and the lack of the same within that quantum model.
Space is supposed to be "empty" and thus the same everywhere. The speed of light c, if constant in a vacuum, "empty space" should be the same passing through the "empty" space between atoms as through any empty space.
I think the real problem is that if one assumes that a photon can pass through the empty space between atoms, without being affected by the absorption/re-emission process, then that "empty space" would have to be "different" than "empty space" generally.
There would have to be something about empty space that is variable and affects the velocity of light. It kinda sorta leads back toward an aether model or requires an assumption that the shape of space is changed sufficiently to affect the speed of light. It presents a potentially significant challenge to the universal aspect of the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum (i.e. empty space).
A universally constant c has become so interwoven with our paradigm(s) of how the universe works that even a change to an only locally constant value threatens a great deal of what we believe.
The mechanics of light and sound cannot be modeled as equivalent. There are too many differences between how then two interact, with the environment in any given environment.
A laser range finder system can detect the velocity of an object, but it does it in a different way than sonar systems.
For a sonar system the difference in the velocity of sound and any object in motion consistent with everyday experience is not so great that a moving object does not change the timing interval between reflected pulses. Sonar is not efficient at determining an objects velocity by that method, because too many environmentally related conditions can affect, the Doppler aspect of reflected sound waves. Instead the object's position from one pulse or pulse series to the next, is compared and from the change in position and elapsed time, its velocity extrapolated.
For a laser ranger finder and/or Lidar system velocity can be calculated based on the Doppler effect, that an objects velocity has on the reflected light pulses. I am not an expert on Lidar, but my understanding is that the Doppler measurement is carried out similar to an interferometer process than a direct measurement.
Give us a link to the specs for the device you refer to here, an image is insufficient to make your case.
Most bathometers operate in a range of a few hundred kHz (radio frequencies) not the THz range of light.
Radio frequencies penetrate water more efficiently than does light and provides the effective range in water to actually map the ocean floor, beyond the depth that light penetrates.
The assumption of length contraction in combination with time dilation provides a very simple method for predicting how angles change between varying reference frames. For example, in a particle collider you can tune the beam energies so that the equivalent centre-of-mass energy stays constant as the beam energies change, and in this manner you can predict particle scattering rates at various energies just by knowing the values at one particular energy level, without requiring any knowledge about the specific underlying mechanics.
Last edited:
I recommend Google.
Or try subsea laser rangefinder.
I do not want you lacking the pleasure of seeking.
What?!? ....never mind, isn't the theme of this thread.
The speed of light is not relative to moving objects. It is invarient, no matter what the relative movment.
This, of course, is the basis for Relativity deniers, such as Motor Daddy and Emil. It is a subject which has been flogged to death innumerable times.
This, of course, is the basis for Relativity deniers, such as Motor Daddy and Emil. It is a subject which has been flogged to death innumerable times.
Is this a dodge? Do you have a specific reference that details how the picture you posted of a laser-bothometer functions?
I asked for a link because when I search for the object of your posts I get no functional detail. Granted it may be my error. Still since it is an important aspect of your argument you must have a specific site to reference.
Right it does not fit the theme. It is consistent with how, "most" bathometers function. Show me a link to a site that demonstrates other wise and I will chalk my confussion up to an error in my own search criteria.
My opinion is that I am still waiting for a link. Or at least a credible citation.
@Only Me
You might like this youtube video.
"Why is glass Transparent" by Phil Moriarty,
Sixty Symbols regular Professor Phil Moriarty discusses transparent glass and the so-called energy gap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omr0JNyDBI0
You might like this youtube video.
"Why is glass Transparent" by Phil Moriarty,
Sixty Symbols regular Professor Phil Moriarty discusses transparent glass and the so-called energy gap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omr0JNyDBI0
Captain, that was actually a good presentation of the absorption/re-emission model. It doesn't really address the issue I meant to be raising.
Say you have, water clear glass composed of pure SO2 and a light source that does not include visible light within the absorption bands of the "glass". When applying the absorption/re-emission model each photon is absorbed and re-emitted without causing a shift in the electron energy state. That is assumed to result in the emitted photon being exactly the same as the absorbed photon. The difficulty here it seems is that this also assumes no heat or kinetic transfer is involved in this kind of transmission.
If this is the case it is no different than if the photon were to pass through the glass without any interaction with its atomic and molecular structure. If it is not the case it means that the transition is lossless, in terms of heat and kinetic energy.
It is difficult to grasp the idea that this interaction can occur in a 100% efficient transfer. Even just the slight time delay associated with the absorption/re-emission process should have some impact on the energy level of the atom and though that time interval is small if there is any interaction at least some portion should be transferred to molecularly associated and yet other wise uninvolved atoms. There should be some energy loss. Which should affect the re-emitted light in some way.
The absorption/re-emission model is reasonable and logical. Yet, it does not address any potential energy loss/transfer that may take place during the process.
If there is any energy transfer, the re-emitted photon cannot be the same as the absorbed photon.
Obviously we cannot watch this process occur in any direct manner. Though the theory is, as I said, both reasonable and logical, it does not address the issue I meant to be raising.
@OnlyMe,
I cannot give you everything. You need to know to searching yourself.
I can give you only a few clues.
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es0501/es0501page03.cfm:
I cannot give you everything. You need to know to searching yourself.
I can give you only a few clues.
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es0501/es0501page03.cfm:
http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys05/catomodel/default.htm: (Please be careful to understand what a model.)
Some people extend these models over reality and they extend the model properties on the material objects, what is wrong.
Last edited:
Emil, those links were for atomic model, what I was asking for is some link to specs on the Laser-Bathometer. I was unable to locate any technical detail and question the effectiveness of using light to range distance in water, as even in clear water penetration drops of rapidly after 10 meters to essentially nothing at 100. (for visible light)
So just for clarification; you think that this is somehow related to length contraction?
Thanks for the links. The info confirms my main issue with the technology for use in water.
From the two links the technical specs show a maximum effective depth of 50 meters and that the system is most useful in shallow water.
It does clarify and correct one of my concerns, as providing an increase in effectiveness over acoustic systems in shallow water.
Another advantage it seems is the ability to make shallow water sea floor surveys from an aircraft. This would be a great advantage time and probably cost wise.
It doesn't really address at least a portion of the initial conversation. The system above actually compares the timing between two separate light pulses, one IR reflected from the surface and the other blue-green that penetrates and is reflected from the sea floor.
This does not involve either a Doppler or speed of light effect. It essentially assumes the known speed of light in air and water and probably that the IR and blue-green light travels at the same velocity since the difference in the water over such a short distance should not significantly affect the comparison.
Thanks again for the links.
Just there is no length contraction.
Neither for the air nor for the water.