The Speed of Light, is it a relative thing?

[SilverAstro]

1 hour ago, RayD said:

Well I've got a Sister on the gas board.........do you wanna meter? 

Only if she is Smart, and can help me unnestan what these geezers is onabout

 

1 hour ago, Delasaurus said:

Did you hear oxygen went on a date with potassium? : It went OK.

How does that work then, cos if I remember right K usually presents as valency 1 whereas O manifests 2

Oh sorry, I may have missed something

 

[SilverAstro]

9 hours ago, andrew s said:

The problem is we can't see past the CMB

Yet !

But Ligo et al are working on it

and I think someone somewhere proposed that the the gravity waves from the BigBang should be observable, not sure how that would work out though, cos it should have got here in the beginning, or will we have to wait another 13.8billion years ?

[Delasaurus]

This is why, I believe, we need to challenge the higher rankings of any discipline and not accept verbosely that their word is final and absolute.

 

[SilverAstro]

10 hours ago, Delasaurus said:

 Is the NPL still going?

No! No!..the guy said. 'it's to protect all the other equipment from interfering with the lathe!

why not make it 1,000,000,000 m/s to bring it up to date with metrification?

Oh very much so !

Yep, ran into the same problem myself when I thort I wanted to make a ruling engine to make my own diffraction grating (well it was a long time ago and they were orrendosly expensive, even the replica ones, fortunately PattenHawksley came to the rescue with a gift it was all a long long time ago when emergent companies were sympathetic to interested amateurs ! ) 

Hehee,  Touché, but mine is the lesser of two wevils ? !

[saac]

1 minute ago, SilverAstro said:

Oh very much so !

Yep, ran into the same problem myself when I thort I wanted to make a ruling engine to make my own diffraction grating (well it was a long time ago and they were orrendosly expensive, even the replica ones, fortunately PattenHawksley came to the rescue with a gift it was all a long long time ago when emergent companies were sympathetic to interested amateurs ! ) 

Hehee,  Touché, but mine is the lesser of two wevils ? !

Silver you have me intrigued regarding the manufacture of gratings. I always thought optical gratings were produced by a form of photographic reduction. What is the ruling engine you speak of?  Just curious.

Jim

[saac]

17 minutes ago, Delasaurus said:

This is why, I believe, we need to challenge the higher rankings of any discipline and not accept verbosely that their word is final and absolute.

 

But if you listen carefully he is effectively saying the question is in the realms of "one hand clapping" and not the preserve of science. Science cannot and should not be expected to answer that question. It's a strawman question for science which only concerns itself with the how not the why.  

Jim

[Delasaurus]

6 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

Hehee,  Touché, but mine is the lesser of two wevils ? !

Else we would have to divide by 3.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333plus infinity wouldn't we..how stupid of me, good observation Baldrick!

[SilverAstro]

Just now, saac said:

Silver you have me intrigued regarding the manufacture of gratings. I always thought optical gratings were produced by a form of photographic reduction. What is the ruling engine you speak of?  Just curious.

Think lathe, with very fine lead screw and cross slide + a very stable top slide, a tool profile to give desired diffraction order angle (blaze) and think that not all gratings have to be created transmission - - then die of fright !

[saac]

1 minute ago, SilverAstro said:

Think lathe, with very fine lead screw and cross slide + a very stable top slide, a tool profile to give desired diffraction order angle (blaze) and think that not all gratings have to be created transmission - - then die of fright !

I'd imagine a very steady hand needed as well. Thanks for that.

Jim

[SilverAstro]

2 minutes ago, Delasaurus said:

Baldrick!

I was thinking Patrrick O'Brian, recently immortalized in a film "Master & Commander"etc. which, as usual, was a poor mish-mash of the printed words ( I have them all, sadly no more will come  )

[SilverAstro]

3 minutes ago, saac said:

I'd imagine a very steady hand needed as well. Thanks for that.

Only to set the infernal machine in motion (else wot the lead screw is for !) Watch out for periodic error (send to ways&means dept.) and then to hold the cup(s) of coffee whilst sitting back beyond the isolating pit ( a bit like astro mounts ! Phew! back on forum message )

[SilverAstro]

13 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

I was thinking Patrrick O'Brian, recently immortalized in a film "Master & Commander"etc. which, as usual, was a poor mish-mash of the printed words ( I have them all, sadly no more will come  )

Oooops missed the essential bit about Wevills, which was a fav. joke of Captain Aubrey, soory to confuse !

[Delasaurus]

17 minutes ago, saac said:

But if you listen carefully he is effectively saying the question is in the realms of "one hand clapping" and not the preserve of science. Science cannot and should not be expected to answer that question. It's a strawman question for science which only concerns itself with the how not the why.  

Jim

It seemed to me, that on the one hand he says trying to chase the answer to the Universe and God is futile and on the other, he seemed to validate the existance of God, which seemed to me, to be contradictory.

[Delasaurus]

38 minutes ago, saac said:

I'd imagine a very steady hand needed as well. Thanks for that.

Jim

It's called Engine Turning saac, Silver was using a normal lathe to do it, the Straight Line engine here will make 'straight' lines too, without the wobbly bits

[SilverAstro]

31 minutes ago, Delasaurus said:

It seemed to me, that on the one hand he says trying to chase the answer to the Universe and God is futile and on the other, he seemed to validate the existance of God, which seemed to me, to be contradictory.

Which "he" are  we talking about now ? It is difficult to keep track of these spider topics without sufficient back refs!

but leave god out of it for heavens sake else we are in deep dodoo

I was recently taken to task (very elswhere on the forum) over the mitochondrial Out of Africa theory and that I should read Dawkins' latest,

well I have read some of some of Dawkins books. never got to the end of any , it is like the Higgs boson = walking through massive treacle, bogged down in endless selfjustifying cross refs

likewise Hawking, should have stuck to science and collaboration with Penrose (who writes eminently readable stuff) and left this god stuff to Dawkins

 

[Delasaurus]

10 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

Which "he" are  we talking about now ? It is difficult to keep track of these spider topics without sufficient back refs!

but leave god out of it for heavens sake else we are in deep dodoo

I was recently taken to task over the mitochondrial Out of Africa theory and that I should read Dawkins' latest,

well I have read some of some of Dawkins books. never got to the end of any , it is like the Higgs boson = walking through massive treacle, bogged down in endless selfjustifying cross refs

likewise Hawking, should have stuck to science and collaboration with Penrose (who writes eminently readable stuff)

 

Dunno, lost track of it myself Silver and all I know now is that the chemist is shut and my 12" scope mirror is still laying on the bench covered in plaster dust. Maybe the Paramedics might be able to finish it off for me.

Out of Africa..great read I thought. I like the bit where we are all cousins and related, bruv! That means I'm in for some cash somewhere if I can track them down before the  coronary kicks in.  Google Maps might help there.

[SilverAstro]

23 minutes ago, Delasaurus said:

Silver was using a normal lathe to do it, the Straight Line engine here

Ohhh thanks that makes me feel soooo old - his getting interested in the 80s 90s ! ( I had to switch off - - these verbose 'tube things pretending to be film producers do nothing for me, give me a well prepared document or web page and I'll give it house room )  I was talking 50s ! eeek ! (I was young and so were the dinosaurs in the wild !)

[Delasaurus]

6 hours ago, SilverAstro said:

So old?

Well according to this lil gem Silver you might well not be...

 

'So just how much faster was light speed just after the Big Bang? According to Magueijo and his colleague Niayesh Afshordi, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo, the answer is "infinitely" faster.

The duo cite light speed as being at least 32 orders of magnitude faster than its currently accepted speed of 300 million meters per second—this is merely the lower bounds of the faster light speed, however. As you get closer to the Big Bang, the speed of light approaches infinity.

On this view, the speed of light was faster because the universe was incredibly hot at the beginning. According to Afshordi, their theory requires that the early universe was at least a toasty 1028 degrees Celsius (to put this in perspective, the highest temperature we are capable of realizing on Earth is about 1016 degrees Celsius, a full 12 orders of magnitude cooler).'

 

If the speed of light can be 32 orders of magnitude faster. then I'm very certain that time, can be 32 orders younger! (somewhere in the Universe) try planet Zoron, think they do package deals from Gatwick.

 

 

[saac]

22 hours ago, Delasaurus said:

Dunno, lost track of it myself Silver and all I know now is that the chemist is shut and my 12" scope mirror is still laying on the bench covered in plaster dust. Maybe the Paramedics might be able to finish it off for me.

Out of Africa..great read I thought. I like the bit where we are all cousins and related, bruv! That means I'm in for some cash somewhere if I can track them down before the  coronary kicks in.  Google Maps might help there.

Posted in reply to your video on Hawkins, the he refers to Hawking.

Jim

[saac]

10 hours ago, SilverAstro said:

Only to set the infernal machine in motion (else wot the lead screw is for !) Watch out for periodic error (send to ways&means dept.) and then to hold the cup(s) of coffee whilst sitting back beyond the isolating pit ( a bit like astro mounts ! Phew! back on forum message )

Makes sense, I always had known that as machine turning (simpler pattern usually on facplates etc). I'd never associated it with diffraction gratings, presumably microwave etc. You live and learn as they say  

Jim

[Macavity]

11 hours ago, saac said:

But if you listen carefully he is effectively saying the question is in the realms of "one hand clapping" and not the preserve of science. Science cannot and should not be expected to answer that question. It's a strawman question for science which only concerns itself with the how not the why.

This has been a thought provoking thread... We have got(ten) away with it so far? lol.

I don't have a problem with anything Hawking said. I find the question as to whether
scientists should express a personal, political or religious (God) view a *difficult* one.
Yes, Brian C, anyone who tells you not to be "political" gets an instant (Twitter) Ban!

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to be famous? A "celebrity scientist" notably!
The slavish adulation... The elevated salary... I might be tempted... I'm only human!
But such seems to carry an increased credibility / responsibility re. the "Science Fans"? 

I think I would post exclusively about SCIENCE under my own name. Anything else,
I might chose anonimity? No *young person* should follow "old" folks uncritically? 
 

[saac]

2 hours ago, Macavity said:

This has been a thought provoking thread... We have got(ten) away with it so far? lol.

I don't have a problem with anything Hawking said. I find the question as to whether
scientists should express a personal, political or religious (God) view a *difficult* one.
Yes, Brian C, anyone who tells you not to be "political" gets an instant (Twitter) Ban!

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to be famous? A "celebrity scientist" notably!
The slavish adulation... The elevated salary... I might be tempted... I'm only human!
But such seems to carry an increased credibility / responsibility re. the "Science Fans"? 

I think I would post exclusively about SCIENCE under my own name. Anything else,
I might chose anonimity? No *young person* should follow "old" folks uncritically? 
 

Full agreement with you there Chris.

Now tell me, have you been banned again for throwing brickbats at that nice Mr Cox's twitter feed.  

Jim 

[Macavity]

1 hour ago, saac said:

Now tell me, have you been banned again for throwing brickbats at that nice Mr Cox's twitter feed.   

Nothing as exciting as that! I did make one of my "whimsical" comments at the time of
the great "Diamond rubbing controversy" (qv) - "Coxy" suggested I "Buy his Book!".

ISTR I got "Tweet Forwarded" by one of his "standup" mates. For a while terrifying! 
I only got THREE responses. One NASTY... Another: "Too right mate!" and the third:
"Didn't agree", but would "Defend my right to opinion...". Whatever our differences, it
is still GREAT to be a citizen of these generally Polite, Scientific and Apatheist Isles? 

[Spikey]

This is an interesting thread and hopefully if we can keep it away from any further mention of politics and/or religion it will continue to be. A couple of posts over the last 24 hours or so are pushing it, so please if you are unfamiliar with the code of conduct  then it might be a good time to read it. No politics and no religion no matter how tenuous the link. Thanks

 

[Delasaurus]

On 19/10/2017 at 09:33, Filroden said:

I know exactly how the metre is defined today and how a prototype measurement had to be used until a definition based on nature could be agreed. What I don't understand is how you can evidence that the metre varies in different parts of the world. Pointing at what things were in the past is not evidence. 

And just to be clear, even the historical definitions did not allow for the metre to be different in different parts of the world. They all produced a "standard" metre which was used as the benchmark everywhere. The fact that the methodology chosen could have given rise to many different definitions is irrelevant; they chose one particular method and used that to create a standard that was universal. So what evidence do you have that shows the metre varying based on location?

And you still haven't provided the evidence for how mass varies with gravity.

I don't need immediate answers. I appreciate these will need research and study and am happy to wait. The answer is important to me. As a surveyor and cartographer, I need to know if I've been practising my trade incorrectly.

The historical definition as you quote, indeed did vary and it varied enormously, which is why a 'new' standard measure of length had to be found. It varied in many ways (even taking out the relativity part) because it was defined as two marks on a metal bar at one time, which was notoriously subject to contraction not by temperature alone (another reason for instability) but by variations in it's molecular construction. In other words the actual material they used was subject to variation. It was also subject to regional variations in gravity which effected its weight, the weight of an object, also effects it structure. So the complications for an exact copy of the master 'marks' were very complex. If a copy of the master was made and sent to various parts of the globe, it's actual length (scientifically) ironically varied from 'certified standard to certified standard'. In lab work of course, this was chaotic for scientific methodology.

Caesuim and Krypton were used because it was more 'accurately reproducible' in the lab and much more accurate around the globe, and did not rely on 'ambient temperature'.

And as you know from your trade, ambient temperature is very important when calibrating your instruments. As is barometric pressure, as things have a weird habit of moving about under this much overlooked phenononommmmmnomnom.

And I'm sure you are well aware as a cartographer, that geographical mass shrinks and expands. So that bit of coastline you measured yesterday, as being 'exactly and precisely' one kilometre long, is a bit shorter today than it was yesterday! Rule No1 for surveyors, never leave your measuring stick in the sun!