I need a ticker...

[ZMacZ]

Basically when a processor does:

START: MOV ACC,0
INC: INC ACC
JR INC

@4 GHZ, you can tell time by 0.000000001 increments..(very rough)

But I'm searching for anything that does that exact same thing as specialised equipment..
Maybe FPGA or anything as long as the amount of ticks per second exceed 1 Tera ticks per second..
(64 bit wide ACC or at least 48..)


Any ideas anyone ?

 

[DaveC426913]

It will not do what you think it will do.
You will measure c as c.

 

[billvon]

Basically when a processor does:

START: MOV ACC,0
INC: INC ACC
JR INC

@4 GHZ, you can tell time by 0.000000001 increments..(very rough)

But I'm searching for anything that does that exact same thing as specialised equipment..
Maybe FPGA or anything as long as the amount of ticks per second exceed 1 Tera ticks per second..
(64 bit wide ACC or at least 48..)


Any ideas anyone ?

Is this for your measurement of time from the other thread? If so look into LIDAR detectors; they can measure time-of-flight to sub-nanosecond accuracy. For example, the TI TDC7201 can measure with a resolution of about 50 picoseconds. Newer IC's can get down to about 10ps.

 

[ZMacZ]

Is this for your measurement of time from the other thread? If so look into LIDAR detectors; they can measure time-of-flight to sub-nanosecond accuracy. For example, the TI TDC7201 can measure with a resolution of about 50 picoseconds. Newer IC's can get down to about 10ps.

Well, actually it is..
And yes, I do believe there's such a thing as an absolute speed..uncovering that will help a great many things..
I just read an article on signal transmission at 43 Tbps, from 2016, and I think that at certain bit transmission rates our own speed will make any
advancements impossible, unless we understand our own initial speed itself..
But that's just the tip of the iceberg..
When measuring stuff at great ranges our own speed also makes this less accurate unless it is known..
But 10ps ? That's only 100Ghz...
Basically it needs to be 1 Thz, with only that INC cycle..no other stuff required..the 'system' get's halted by seizing the clocksignal..then the ACC will be read..

It will not do what you think it will do.
You will measure c as c.

I'm not measuring C...I'm measuring the time it takes for a lightbeam to arrive at it's destination..
The timing will differ based upon our own speed..
Since c is constant the difference in timing will tell me how much of the speed of light I already have..

 

[DaveC426913]

the difference in timing will tell me how much of the speed of light I already have..

...relative to your destination. Which has an arbitrary speed of its own, depending on what you measure its speed relative to.

 

[billvon]

I'm not measuring C...I'm measuring the time it takes for a lightbeam to arrive at it's destination.

LIDAR has been doing that for a long time.

The timing will differ based upon our own speed.

Nope. It's always the same.

Since c is constant the difference in timing will tell me how much of the speed of light I already have..

You will always measure zero.

Again, this has been done. The experiment was called Michelson-Morley. They used a very sensitive interferometer to see if a light beam along one axis was any slower or faster than a light beam along a second axis. They then rotated the entire device; if they saw a change in the pattern as the device rotated, they would know that that axis was lined up more or less with the direction of travel. This experiment was repeated as recently as 2009, with beam distances of meters and measurement accuracies of angstroms. In all cases, the speed of light was the same in all directions.

 

[ZMacZ]

ok then, when looking at LIDAR, you'd have to measure the time it takes from point of emission to point of projection right ?
But in order to see any laser dot be projected back, the light on the surface would have to travel back right ?
That's LIDAR right ?
And the reason it won't change it's timing is that it has to travel along vector A and then back over vector -A right ?
Which means that the timing difference overall would yield zero right ?
But..when going back AND forth along the same vector the resulting timing would not change OFC..
And herein lies the truth...you didn't measure it at the destination, you measured it at the source..
So, any timing difference would be lost either going to the destination or on the way back..
People keep telling me LS is a constant..that it is not dependant on the source..
So, when light travels at a speed of 300.000 Km per second anywhere, it would stand to reason
that it's time to destination would not change ever, from one point to the next..
When I'm moving at 10 km/s any constant relative point away from me,
at 300.000 km would receive the signal after a little over 1s..
Why ? because basically light travels at a constant 300.000 kms..
And the relative point would also have travelled 10 km..
So light would actually need to travel 300.010 km instead of 300.000..
This will change the timing at the DESTINATION..
But, when measured at the source..
It would first travel 300.010 km towards the destination, but back again it would only need to travel 299.980 km, for another second has passed..
And no matter if you measure it like that than yes...it will be forever constant..
BUT..at the destination it will still be after 1s+(1/30.000) seconds..
And that timing DOES change..and that will tell you YOUR speed along the vector source-destination..
Or maybe my math is off ?

 

[ZMacZ]

Just in case, rolling up 30 Km of fibreoptics and sending a lightbeam will NOT yield results..
(as the lightbeam will go back AND forth a couple thousand times..)
The reason the Michelson Morley fails is that it's based on reflection..
Going to destination AND going back..
In which case it'll always be the same..
The only way that would change if it's only measured at the DESTINATION, so one way..
Not 2 way..
(and then either one of the following two can apply: c = constant XOR c=constant only from observer,
in which case it isn't a universal constant..)
or maybe 300.000 km = 300.010 km ? Maybe I'm wrong there ?

 

[ZMacZ]

In a more terrestrial setting, I'd take 30 km, and fire a laser beam from point A to point B during the day..(point a and B would
be paralel along the equatorial line) (with individual tickers)
Then, I'd do the same at night, and compare the ticks..
On teh daytime. the earth would be facing the sun, and during the night it would be away from the sun..
(The difference being A and B during the day and night being almost opposite..)

.

 

[billvon]

In a more terrestrial setting, I'd take 30 km, and fire a laser beam from point A to point B during the day..(point a and B would
be paralel along the equatorial line) (with individual tickers)
Then, I'd do the same at night, and compare the ticks..
On teh daytime. the earth would be facing the sun, and during the night it would be away from the sun..
(The difference being A and B during the day and night being almost opposite..

Yep. And the measured time would be exactly the same. Again, this test has been done hundreds of times. But if you want to be #101, knock yourself out.

 

[origin]

People keep telling me LS is a constant..that it is not dependant on the source..

They are correct. It is also not dependant on the receiver.

So, when light travels at a speed of 300.000 Km per second anywhere, it would stand to reason
that it's time to destination would not change ever, from one point to the next..

That is correct if the points are not moving relative to each other.

When I'm moving at 10 km/s any constant relative point away from me,
at 300.000 km would receive the signal after a little over 1s..
Why ? because basically light travels at a constant 300.000 kms..
And the relative point would also have travelled 10 km..
So light would actually need to travel 300.010 km instead of 300.000..

All of that is correct.

This will change the timing at the DESTINATION..

I don't know what you mean. The light traveled 300,010 km and the speed of the light would be measured as c.

But, when measured at the source..
It would first travel 300.010 km towards the destination, but back again it would only need to travel 299.980 km, for another second has passed..
And no matter if you measure it like that than yes...it will be forever constant..

You have confused yourself. Distance to the receiver is 300,010 and the distance back would be 300,010.

BUT..at the destination it will still be after 1s+(1/30.000) seconds..
And that timing DOES change..and that will tell you YOUR speed along the vector source-destination..
Or maybe my math is off ?

The math does not seem the issue, it is your understanding of light and velocity.

 

[ZMacZ]

origin..

ok we agree LS=c..

So, when travelling LS for 1 second it travels 300.000km correct ?
So, instead it has to travel 300.010 for we have 10 km/s as a starting speed..
And it will take therefore 300.010/300.000 correct ? (1 s + 1(30.000) second right ?
Now on the way back when emitted from that exact 300.010 km, and we are still travelling at that same speed
the point of origin will have moved 10 km closer when the light arrives again right ?
It'l be at 20km..300.010-20 km right ?
So asially when it travels back it reaches the destination sooner..299.990 km travel..
Since LS is constant it'll therefore be less then 1s, 299.990/300.000 <1 second yes ?
this MUST be true when LS is constant , and we agreed on that already..
Now, the distance travelled to and fro will be 300.010+299.990 km altogether yes ?
The start and return point are still 300.000 km apart from each other..from beginning till end..
So yes, IF LS =c and we agreed on that the entire journey will take 2 second right ?
Now, is there a difference in timing when you compare AB and BA against each other ?
300.010 to, 299.990 fro..
Now, when you check the timing in B it'll show a differnce..
NOT in LS, since that is c...so, what can explain the timing difference ?
The initial speed we had..
And thus you can establish an absolute speed, in accordance with V=LS-LS.
For when you take the speed of light which is absolute and constant, and subtract the speed of light you have absolute zero speed..
So, by checking the time light travels from one point to the next and both point are moving at the same speed, ANY AND ALL
timing differenecs can ONLY be from the initial speed..
LS = constant..and it will take 300.000+Vinit/300.000 second to get there..
My math in this case isn't off..
Every experiment failed for it was based on reflection..
300.010+299.990 = 600.000 km, so yes, in all there was 2 seconds passed..but from AB there's a difference in the time light travelled
at it's constant speed, and on BA there was also a difference in time travelled by the light as it was less than 300.000 km..
Total = 600.000 km = 2 lightseconds..
To 300.010 km= >1 second (1 second +1/30.000th) second
Fro 299.990 km= <1 second (1 second - 1/30.000th) second..
Total time 2sec..and yes constant ls =c..
The only way you can tell the initial speed is by using lightspeed since it IS a constant..
LS-LS= absolute zero speed, not relative, since LS isn't dependant on perspective, it's absolute..

Based upon LS's absolutism, you can get the absolute speed of anything, without perspective..
When you refract or bend back the same light it will have the same configuration as it had when it left..
It doesn't go faster or slower..
And that's why it will take 1sec + 1/30.000 second to get to it's destination when teh destination is moving at 10km/s away from the point of emission..

Let me make it simple for you...

When light has to travel 300.000 km or 300.010 km, does that make a difference ? Yes..
And that has nothing to do with MY understanding of the speed of light and velocity..
300.000 does NOT equal 300.010, no matter what physics element you want to apply..
So when light travels each distance:
300.000 ......300.010
--------- =/= ---------- must then also be true..
300.000.......300.000

so, timing difference will occur when the timing is done correctly, and not by any type of bounce..
Once you go bounce, it will read exactly the same every time..
300.010+299.990=600.000= EXACT 2LS...but 300.010 is NOT 300.000 km/s

 

[billvon]

So, when travelling LS for 1 second it travels 300.000km correct ?
So, instead it has to travel 300.010 for we have 10 km/s as a starting speed..
And it will take therefore 300.010/300.000 correct ? (1 s + 1(30.000) second right ?
Now on the way back when emitted from that exact 300.010 km, and we are still travelling at that same speed . . .

OK you may be getting yourself confused here by using the term "we."

If the ENTIRE SYSTEM (you plus the emitter, detector, reflector, wiring, LIDAR, target whatever) is travelling at 10km/s, 100km/s, or 10,000km/s then you will always see the same thing - the light beam will travel 300,000km in 1 second from your perspective. If the target is 300,000km away then the light will take 1 second to reach it, as observed by you. No matter what speed the entire system is going relative to anyone else.

"But . . . but . . if someone else is observing that from the outside he will observe something different!" you may claim. That's quite right - and is the basis of Lorentz contraction.

Now, if you postulate that the source is stationary, and the receiver is moving, then light will indeed take longer to get there - because the target will be farther away when the beam arrives. Other things will happen as well, like Doppler shift.

 

[ZMacZ]

Michelson Morley debunked..

Light's consistency does not change depending on the observes..
That is what IS proven by the experiment..
What they hoped for was a change in spectrum by any initial speed..
LS = c, so whatever you send out you receive back..
And the experiment confirmed that..

But what it wasn't able to do, is tell our own initial speed, by said expected change for it didn't..
And why ? LS=c, no matter what..
So whaver you send out (photons) you receive back in the exact same manner..and the experiment proved that..
the only thing that actually changed was the light density difference from the source..
And that was be such a minute difference that not even 32 bit/color channel depth makes a diff there..(like ur monitor using 96 bit color depth..)
FYI 32 bit would only differ with a difference greater than 4G spectrum..
Anyways, yes, they did the experiment and nothing changed visibly or even detectable..
So..FACT !!!
The composition of light does not change with a moving target..FACT..
But what does change ? TTD...since 300.000km does not equal 300.010 km..
While TTD changes TTR (TimeTil Return) does not...
And that's where you can establish the initial speed of the light emitter along vector source->destination..
And once again source-destination-source will be exactly 2second, and fully and completely in accordance with LS=c..

 

[ZMacZ]

OK you may be getting yourself confused here by using the term "we."

If the ENTIRE SYSTEM (you plus the emitter, detector, reflector, wiring, LIDAR, target whatever) is travelling at 10km/s, 100km/s, or 10,000km/s then you will always see the same thing - the light beam will travel 300,000km in 1 second from your perspective. If the target is 300,000km away then the light will take 1 second to reach it, as observed by you. No matter what speed the entire system is going relative to anyone else.

"But . . . but . . if someone else is observing that from the outside he will observe something different!" you may claim. That's quite right - and is the basis of Lorentz contraction.

Now, if you postulate that the source is stationary, and the receiver is moving, then light will indeed take longer to get there - because the target will be farther away when the beam arrives. Other things will happen as well, like Doppler shift.

I do NOT claim that...
Lorentz contraction does not happen with light..that's what Michelson Morley in fact proved..
The conetnt of the lightbeam does not change upon perspective, only the density of photons..

 

[billvon]

I do NOT claim that...

OK. So what do you claim?

Lorentz contraction does not happen with light..that's what Michelson Morley in fact proved..

I think you are using terms you may not understand.

The conetnt of the lightbeam does not change upon perspective, only the density of photons..

The content does indeed change; Doppler shifting changes the frequency (and hence the energy) of the beam. That is easily proven in a lab.

 

[Zillion]

Basically when a processor does:

START: MOV ACC,0
INC: INC ACC
JR INC

@4 GHZ, you can tell time by 0.000000001 increments..(very rough)

But I'm searching for anything that does that exact same thing as specialised equipment..
Maybe FPGA or anything as long as the amount of ticks per second exceed 1 Tera ticks per second..
(64 bit wide ACC or at least 48..)


Any ideas anyone ?

 

[ZMacZ]

If the target is 300,000km away then the light will take 1 second to reach it.

There you go..

IF the target is 300.000km away THEN it will take 1 second to reach it..
IF the target is 300.010km away THEN it will take >1 second to reach it...

TADA !!

And why will it be 300.010 km away instead of 300.000 ?
Because the target IS moving at 10 km/s..
LS being constant, it WILL be 1+1/30.000th second..not 1 second..
And Michaelson Morlay will have proven beforehand that spectrals differences are NOT to be expected, only TTD differences..
(resulting in a 1/30.000 diminishing in photon/second density at the destination..not a spectral change..)

 

[ZMacZ]

OK. So what do you claim?

I think you are using terms you may not understand.

The content does indeed change; Doppler shifting changes the frequency (and hence the energy) of the beam. That is easily proven in a lab.

The content of the light does NOT change, Michaelson Molay proves that..
But yes Doppler shift does occur, when source and destination are NOT moving at the same speed..

 

[ZMacZ]

- opts out from the discussion..