Speed of Light

Message 3 of 268 (471929) 06-19-2008 9:50 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Hoof Hearted 06-19-2008 9:25 AM

Light doesn't shift red because its speed is changeing. The color of light is dependent on the wavelength (which depends on the frequency). As the source of light moves away from us, the frequency becomes slower which causes the wavelength to appear to be longer, which makes the light look more red. This is the Doppler Effect. You can also read about Red Shift on wikipedia.

Message 74 of 268 (538231) 12-04-2009 5:20 PM

Reply to: Message 73 by Viv Pope 12-04-2009 5:07 PM

That we can see an interference pattern when we perform the double slit experiment pretty much destroys that notion that light is not traveling as a wave.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : appalin' spallin'

Message 76 of 268 (538235) 12-04-2009 5:45 PM

Reply to: Message 75 by Iblis 12-04-2009 5:33 PM

In Message 33 we have this:

quote:

---

Furthermore, if that so-called ‘velocity’ is ascribed to particles of light, as in Einstein’s concept of the ‘photon’, then any idea of that particle being something properly conceived as material becomes untenable. This is because according to Relativity, anything properly called a particle, no matter how small we may be imagine it to be, becomes infinitely massive at the ‘speed c’, whereas the only mass that can be ascribed to a light-quantum in the visible range of the spectrum (i.e., its spectral energy divided by c-squared) is in the minuscule order of 10-35 kilogram.

---

He seems to misunderstand the whole deal with photons and rest mass and all that.

Message 139 of 268 (539241) 12-14-2009 10:54 AM

Reply to: Message 79 by Viv Pope 12-05-2009 5:31 AM

Oh okay. Then explain it to me.

When I studied the physics of light in college there was an awesome demonstration that I still remember quite well. They had an overhead projector with this wacky aparatus on it. it was a thin clear plasitc set-up of the double slit experiment but it held water in it. There was a little wave maker in the back. You could see the waves on the screen from the projector. So there we had it, right in front of our eyes, water waves interfering and demonstrating constructive and destructive interference. It looked just like this:

Then, they showed us the double slit experiment with light and it produced the well-known interference pattern:

The light behaved just like the water waves except we couldn't actually see the waves themselves when it was done with the light.

But its a great explanation of the observation of the wave-interference. It can be explained in simple english and/or with some diagrams. You don't have to read a whole paper.

The whole argument? No. But I'm definately not going to read your paper. If your explanation has any worth at all, then you should be able to offer a simple consice plain english explanation of the observed phemonemon.

Also, it should be a better explanation that the one of light being propogating waves kinda like water that can so easily be demonstrated.

Spamming your paper to me is not going to convince me that you're on to anything.

Can you explain it or not?

Message 167 of 268 (539346) 12-15-2009 10:13 AM

Reply to: Message 164 by Viv Pope 12-15-2009 5:21 AM

No, I don't read every post. Where's the post where you explained it? You can link directly to it with the msg tags.

Well, it was water waves being a demonstration of how light waves propogate.

Huh?

Are you asking about a medium to propogate through, like the aether or something?

Light waves, themselves, are propogating. They don't need something to progate "in".

Oh, that "logic" stuff you talking about ain't worth a crap. I've seen the LOGIC that evolution is impossible because of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Its retarded to try to use that LOGIC when a simple observation suggests the complete opposite.

No, I didn't see it. Post number please (with a link preferably).

We see guys like you here frequently enough. Your type comes on with some ultimately profound, gonna turn physics on its head, claim but they can never hash out there argument into a text box. The best they can do is throw out links to their website or paper. It might as well be the spam that I get in my email.

You don't, but this is a discussion forum. Its a two way street. We're not here to play with ourselves. And we're not here to have websites thrown at us (its even in the rules).

Now, if you are unable to explain something in a simple text box, then I don't think you understand it well enough to claim it.

Until they're here discussing with me, I don't really give a shit about them.

Don't run away so soon. At least link me to the posts where you've explained something.

And I'm sorry that being called out on your inability to offer a simple explanation of your claim seems useless to you. That, in itself, is exposing though.

I think Percy hit the nail on the head in the other thread: If anyone thinks that you have explained anything, then they should be able to explain it too. But nobody can, and they're all saying you haven't explianed anything :-\

* I was gonna go point by point to your 10 reasons but I'm not now. I don't see any reason.

I have a direct observation suggesting that light does indeed travel as a propogating wave. All your little logical deductions that light cannot be traveling do not trump my direct observation.

Here's what I had so far:

Velocity is defined as "distance over time". You cannot have a "distance over time" that is not a velocity.

No, it has nothing to do with Affirming the Consequent.

That's actually kind of funny. That once you put the camera in there to take the picture, then you no longer have a vacuum anymore. Well, if you have an emitter, and then a vaccuum, and then a detector, and the light goes from the emitter to the detector, then it must have traveled through the vacuum.

Maybe for direct observation, but we can still infer that light is traveling in a vacuum.

Actually, I'm not going to bother going through all these.

I'm gonna come at this from another angle. And its the same one I came from earlier.

Regardless of all your LOGIC arguments that light cannot be traveling (which what I've read so far are instead saying that we couldn't directly measure the velocity in a vacuum), I have the direct observation of the two slit expirement that shows that light is, in fact, propogating (traveling) waves. So first, we have the simple explanation that does travel.

Now, you can explain why that is wrong. Or can you?

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.