As some of you guys know the methodology of determining the value of light speed “c” very thoroughly I would like to ask a question which at first may seem a bit controversial.

No doubt you are tired of persons approaching the “c” issue in ways that make no sense but I ask your indulgence.

After attempting to understand methods used to determine ‘c” I wish to ask those who know these methods well the following question.

Could the delay we are measuring be the time it takes the surfaces to generate the reflection and not the speed of light itself?

The rotating mirror method measures the difference of source versus destination via a reflection from a fixed mirror (If I understand it right) I can see how this would suggest that Light has a speed “c”.

But I would like to suggest that possibly what is in fact being measured is the time delay for the surfaces to generate the reflection due to a change in intensity and not the speed of light

Is there any reason that you can find that my suggestion is invalid? If so in what way?

So u are suggesting the speed of light may be infinite and take zero time to travel a given distance? Hmmm interesting!

(except hasn't the speed of light been proven empirically using Maxwells laws?)

actually I am (1) suggesting that the time it takes to generate the reflection should be taken into account when making measurements....and (2) that light may not travel at all.....no speed......and I have an easy experiment that you guys can easilly do to prove me right about "c" I'll post it after I word it out properly

Something I thought of after posting this thread, and I’m sure it’s been thought of before.....

If light travels at “c” then when the source of the light is extinguished the result would be a delay of “c” before the light observed was extinguished.

The attachment is a simple experiment that could be done to test this theory that observed light would face a delay in going out after the source was switched off.

Obviously the more reflections involved the greater the distance therefore the easier to prove or disprove......or
possibly there is a smarter way to prove or disprove the hypothesis????

reflectdelay (http://www.paygency.com/reflectdecay.htm)

I am tempted to predict that the end light will go out simultaneously with the source.

The tests I have done here are inconclusive as I don’t have the equipment to set it up.

Has any one got any information on this angle to the light speed question?

(I have attached a file but it appears not to be showing as such)

actually I am (1) suggesting that the time it takes to generate the reflection should be taken into account when making measurements....and (2) that light may not travel at all.....no speed......and I have an easy experiment that you guys can easilly do to prove me right about "c" I'll post it after I word it out properly

Already done. All you need to do is make measuring devices of different lengths. Any delay by reflection would remain constant. but the travel time of the light would vary. It woul dthen be very easy to factor out the reflection delay time. Since there have been already many experiments done to measure the speed of light all using different apparatus, Any such reflection delay would have aready been noted and accounted for.

(2) that light may not travel at all.....no speed......and I have an easy experiment that you guys can easilly do to prove me right about "c" I'll post it after I word it out properly

Well if light travels it must have a speed. U say that light doesn't travel though. I thought that the definition of travel was to get from a to b. If light doesn't travel it cannot get from a to b!

why "go" anywhere when you are already there.....the light "speed" we observe is only a change in the intensity and not because the light has arrived so to speak....

I am just trying to work out how to prove that this is the case....that to consider light as traveling is a mistake in what is being measured.

The value of "c" still remains but the value represents something other that speed from "a" to "b".

How can we rule out this possibility?

Quantum Quack,

At this very moment, while you read this, somebody is sitting next to you. You can't see him, because he has not arrived yet, but he is already there.

Is there really somebody sitting next to you ?

This is the answer you are proposing.

Bye!

Crisp

Very interesting thought Quantum Quark.

All answers fail to answer your question, because I expect the defining experiments HAVE NOT been performed, because the conclusion would be counter intuitive.

After all, we see a woodchopper chopping wood over there on the hill, then we hear the sound..... we expect electromagnetic energy has a speed from source to target.

mmmh !!!!!!

Where is the evidence for this ????????????????

Is there really somebody sitting next to you ?

is this question for me or him.?.....ha.....I'll shake his hand anyway......

If the future were as ridgid as the concept of "c" then the answer to your question is yes he is.........about to be. Unfortunately he may change his mind in transit and go sit next to someone else so therefore he only has the potential of actually sitting next to me which of course is why he isn't physically sitting next to me becasue if he was it would no longer be a question or a potential.

Your thoughts pose an interesting idea Crisp but I fail to see how they relate to my questions about "c" being speed in the change in intensity instead of speed of travel.

or what happens when you switch the light of...and whether this has been confirmed by experiment and scientific testing.


The thing is, according to light theory and curved universe theory, if I fire of a 10 second pulse of red laser light into the night sky and avoid hitting anything then the pulse of light will continue to travel for eternity at the speed of "c".

This I find "counter intuitive."

Also looking into the night sky and being told that I am looking at an illusion is also a bit counter intuitive.

>> the pulse of light will continue to travel for eternity at the speed of "c".

If this were true, electromagnetic radiation would be the only thing to be eternal!!!!!!!
and that is just a plainly stupid conception, because the sky would be so intense we all would be vaporised.

Instead we see a bight sky at 2.7oK, the CMB, showing quite clearly that light degenerates.

Actually Crisp if you apply your point to the inannimate, not willed, then the answer is yes the light is effectively there and every where else as well....just too dim to see that's all.

Already done. All you need to do is make measuring devices of different lengths. Any delay by reflection would remain constant. but the travel time of the light would vary. It woul dthen be very easy to factor out the reflection delay time. Since there have been already many experiments done to measure the speed of light all using different apparatus, Any such reflection delay would have aready been noted and accounted for.

Actually if we realise that the intesity or strength of the light varies according to distance then it can also be stated that the time it takes to generate the reflection would indeed vary as well.

The greater the distance - the lower the intensity -the slower the time taken to generate the reflection.

Janus, I hope you agree

In the mirror test I proposed....the greater the number of reflections.....the greater the distance.......the slower it takes to generate the reflection, thus it apprears that the light is taking time when in fact it MAY not be at all.

actually ,aybe even a simpler question is that when you shine a torch into a mirror in side a room full of mirrors, why does the light go out when you switch it off in the first place.....

If the "photons" continue to exist why do they dissappear?

Actually on second thoughts, that's a stupid question, please forgive me

Note the light only travels at speed 'c' in a vacuum. ;)

And yes, the speed of light has been proven with Maxwell's equations. I know this because I've also done it myself. 'Twas a beautiful proof.

Photons are absorbed by electrons in atoms.

--Long Live the Female Messiah.
http://www.angelfire.com/fang/goategg01/Defiance.gif (http://www.pinkeye.se)

Actually if we realise that the intesity or strength of the light varies according to distance then it can also be stated that the time it takes to generate the reflection would indeed vary as well.


Why? You've established no causual connection between the two. You just make the assumption ad hoc.


The greater the distance - the lower the intensity -the slower the time taken to generate the reflection.

Janus, I hope you agree



No, I do not. This would cause bright lights to reflect more quickly than dim ones. Since the numerous measurement of light speed I've already mentioned used many different intensities of light, they would have gotten wildly varying results if such were the case. They didn't.

So Janus you can explain then why a laser fired from earth appears dimmer when seen from the moon than from 10 feet away?

or
why does a reflective surface get hotter the closer it is to the source?

If the lights intensity is not distance related then what is it's intensity related to?

Janus as you know of many "c" experiments can you link me to some information on the experiment I suggested in the above post? ( measuring "c" by loss rather than gain)

So Janus you can explain then why a laser fired from earth appears dimmer when seen from the moon?

If the lights intensity is not distance related then what is it's intensity related to?

I never said it wasn't; what I said is that you have not shown any connection between light intensity and time needed to "generate a reflection".

I also said that light intensity does not rely entirely on distance, but also on the intial strength of the light. While a laser appears dimmer from the moon, a pen light would be magnitudes dimmer than that. Does that mean that a pen light would take longer to reflect off the moon than a laser? It would have to if reflection time was linked to intensity. Yet we have never seen any such variation of reflection tied to different strengths of light.

In fact, devices such as radar wouldn't work properly if this were the case. (radar beams are just a different wavelength of electromagnetic radiation than light) All radars are calibrated to the same speed of light, regardless of the power of the radar. If intensity was a factor in signal return time, different radars would all have to be calibrated diffferently. (which they aren't, and they all work fine as is.)

thanks Janus.....what comes to mind is the question on how "Stealth" design work regarding radar.
I think from what I have heard they state that the radar signal is absorbed rather than reflected.....this leads to the previous statements I have read at this forum that the reflector absorbs some of the "signal" or light and reflects the rest.

If the object matches the ambience that it is in then the signal would be uniform and the object would effectivey be invisible. ( magicians use this technique all the time)

The point is that if the object fails to absorb the light then it is reflected so possibly the absorbtion rate hence reflective rate ( over time) maybe important in calculating "c"

If it isn't then would that not mean that the rate of reflection generation must be many times faster than the speed of light?

Also if relection rates are static I would like to ask how is it we see different colours reflected?

A red relection for example compared to a blue reflection from a White light source?

BY the way, I have a little off-topic question here (sorry about that), after answering this you can resume your discussion on your main topic. thanks

How is light reflected? Do certain atoms in an object simply bend a ray of light away from them while it comes, or do they absorb the light first, go to excitation phase first before emitting it at random (rather odd....) or how else?

I asked this question a while ago in a the following thread
Light in reflection? (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31771)





How do we explain how light can be reflected?

The light is absorbed by atoms in the mirror, then re-emitted.

If the photon has energy, then how is this energy able to change direction with out loss?

It is briefly "stored" in the material doing the reflecting, then given back to the photons.

If we had a perfect mirror would the reflected light be the same intensity as the light being reflected?

Yes.

Are reflection and refraction treated similar?

They both involve interaction with atoms...

I may add that the answer given was inconclusive and not pursued any further......

QuantumQuack,

It occurs to me that they should be able to bounce a laser between two parallel mirrors. As the angle of the laser ijection is changed slightly the path length and the number of reflections would change.

Perhaps a computer could determine the re-emmission delay based on differences in the timing.

Thanks for that MacM.......I have found that the purpose of the experiment can be found already displayed. Described by Dinosaur in the thread "Light experiment re-stated."

But you are correct and yes there are still questions I wish to pursue with this experiment.

One in particular:

If you take two mirrors and look at what you see. You see one reflection of a reflection when looked at an angle.

But according to light theory I feel the reflection should be unable to be comprehended and all the light is reflected in all angles thus the image I would suggest at this stage ( havent really thought about it much) should be a big blurr.....

OOPsie......I posted the above response using the teams handle........my mistake....won't happen again I promise....