Testing the speed of light as being real?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Quantum Quack, Nov 24, 2011.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Proposed test apparatus:

    We have two large mirrors of appropriate size, position exactly parallel to each other 1000 meters apart.

    Observation:

    The reflections displayed in the mirrors should taper off towards infinity in number depending on the accuracy of the positioning and quality of the mirrors.

    The test:

    Once the mirrors reflect an adequate number of reflections [of each other] the alignmment of the mirrors is impacted on which should show a significant change in the reflections displayed.

    If light does indeed travel [ d/t ] between the two mirrors there should be a demonstratable lag or delay in the stacking of the reflections. In fact it would be in the measuring of this delay in the "stacking" that would indicate the speed of light over the multiple 1000 meter increments. The more increments the greater the lag or delay should be evidenced.

    Does any one know of this test being performed and if so do you have a link to a web page etc.

    My feeling is that there will be no demonstratable delay in the reflection stacking.

    The idea is to remove the possibility for measurement interpretation error. The stacking effect should be visible and measurable therefore not only proving light travels with visual evidence but also measurement. using a laser only provides measurement and not visual evidence where as the stacking effect should provide both.
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    A laser?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Nope. It has to be only the reflections of the other mirror and the stacking effect that Should be present. Simple test I would think.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I have since edited the op to explain...sorry about that..
     
  8. el es Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    322
    Is it that you don't trust the Luner Laser Ranging Experiment?
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    No I don't trust it! As the data needed to properly assess this as an example is apparently unavailable.

    When firing a projectile [laser used as a gun] at a moving target from a moving position to hit a tiny moving target area over a long distance the need to calculate what is commonly called "kentucky windage", that is to say, "leading the target" is required.

    In the past I have been unable to find any information on this needed calculation [data] being applied to the luna laser shot. The absense of this data is rather bewildering to me as I would have thought it would be obviously required when assessing this sort of activity.
    The use of the mirror test as descibed in the OP tests for just this requirement [ kentucky windage ] over distance. [ inversely ]
    The other interesting thing is that the use of a laser nulifies or attempts to nulify the particle /wave duality issue by forcing the projected light to take on attributes that are equivalent to a particle type outcome.
    So we have a narrow "beam" of particle/wave dualised phenonema being projected at a small target luna mirror, thus requiring the need to provide kentucky windage measurements and calculations.

    And besides all of this, science is not about "trust" but about agnostic indifference to anything other than evidencial outcomes. IMO.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2011
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Just for more background...

    When Ole Romer in the year 1671 managed to measure light speed using Jupiters moons as described by this diagram:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    reference: Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Rømer

    It fails to show any kentucky windage measurements or calculations in it's conclusions. Both the Earth and the Moons of Jupiter and Jupiter itself being moving objects the point in time when he "stops his watch" and makes his observations and subsequent conclusions, may be greatly in error with out the Kentuck windage calculations being included.

    Possibly I am mistaken and the need for this measurement is irrelevant, but as yet I have to find reason to believe so.

    And the use of the mirror test as per the OP deals with all the possible issues in the one demonstration.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    But why do you want to do this?
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    now there's a question for science?
    Why do we want to do science?
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    the question for you though, is why are you trying to avoid the question(s) raised in the OP and subsequent posts?
     
  14. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    It's like this: the speed of light is the "realest" thing about the universe--everyone measures the same speed. If you try to measure the gravitational constant or Planck's constant you need some seriously accurate equipment, but you can measure c accurately with relatively cheap gear. So it's also the easiest to confirm.

    Besides, modern communications would have problems, and they don't. There's no evidence in the whole of electronics that c isn't constant. Of course, that's a "local" thing which we can't reliably assume is universal, except the universe doesn't look any different, in terms of its history, anywhere we look. So it's probably true for the visible universe.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    who me? all said was "laser" and "why".

    Laser is the only practical thing I can think of that bounces light back and forth per your query.

    In practical applications of science it is common to ask why a test is proposed, what is the objective, and what are the best means to accomplish the task.

    If all you wanted to do was measure the speed of light there are cheaper and easier ways to do it. I was seeking an elucidation of your background for proposing this particular method.
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    so you want to measure t and use this to compute c

    there will be exactly t delay

    so you will have to measure d and t very accurately

    Use a laser in the visible spectrum and you will see it
    I'm not not sure how you see the stacking effect

    Generally, in measurement that demand high accuracy, it is best to avoid induced measurement error that can result from repeated insertions of even small errors. So you will have to wonder about the accuracy of the mirror in its flatness and its exact position in space, and as to the exact location on the surface of the mirror where reflection occurs, and how to devise such a mirror to minimize these effects.

    For this reason it would seem easier to shoot a laser in a straight uninterrupted beam to reduce the cumulative effects of error.

    The distance need not be that far. Whether you shoot light 1m or 1000m or more, how does that affect the accuracy of the measurement?

    Measurement accuracy will be highly dependent upon the accuracy to discern the phase difference between transmitted and received pulses, and so your apparatus, with or without stacked mirrors, needs a highly accurate gate on the transmitter and a highly accurate detector on the receiver and a highly accurate phase detector on the processing side.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    as explained then all we have to do if using a laser is test the issue of "kentucky windage" and the problem is more or less solved.

    The stacking of the reflections though is the easiest way because any kentucky windage issues would be glaringly obvious to the naked eye. Thus providing eyewitness and measurement testimony.

    If the reflections demonstrate a time delay evidenced by the "stacking"
    then currently held belief is upheld but if there is no evidence of time delayed stacking then we are in trouble with our current belief about light.
     
  18. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    In 1969, I attended the Cooper Union School of Engineering in New York.

    As part of the welcome tour for new students and parents, a group of Juniors (third year students) set up the apparatus to measure the speed of light, in the basement. While it was very impressive looking, involving lasers, very precise mirrors and sensitive timing switches, it was not at all difficult, as long as you have the right equipment. After all, this is routinely done by undergrad students.
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Yes I have done the same in calibrating electronic test equipment, or measuring the accuracy of the of time of arrival of a pulse, or propagation delay of RF, or of a light wave down a fiber.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    The standard testing does not involve issues of "kentucky windage" or leading the target therefore IMO the standard testing is inconclusive unless it does.

    The only possible currently available test is the earth/luna pulse

    What is the lead time for the luna laser pulse? anyone?
    Is it documented anywhere?
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I am sorry if I sounded trite but the issue is about "kentucky windage" evidenced by the stacking delay that should be present in the reflections...if one holds to current scientific belief.
     
  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I don't understand the reference to a moving target. Are you trying to measure a laser rangefinder for a weapon? There will be delay in the ballistic trajectory, but that is a consequence of the relatively low velocity of the projectile. Light travels at light speed, and your "target" won't have a chance to move and inch before you nail it with a laser. (Not sure how this fits in to your scenario.)

    Except light travels so much faster than a projectile - so how do these facts fit together? I don't see your point.

    [/QUOTE]
    Yes you may have tried this at home - take a video cam, shoot it directly into your TV and watch the reflections replicate. Each one occurs very slowly, compared to light, because each one has to go through all of the processing and transmission delay before it produces a new image to feed back into the camera.

    However, your last statement, that we have a belief about light - is this where the pseudoscience comes in? What is there to believe about light that is not currently known and readily tested?
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    2 mirrors 1000 meters apart,
    Should take 300 reflections [at 300000kms/sec] to demonstrate a stacking affect over 1 second or slightly longer due to the light traveling through the atmosphere. Should be obvious to the naked eye I would think.
     

Share This Page