Die Lichtgeschwindigkeit Teil 1/2 – Antwort an Robert ToFalls Versuch, Einstein zu widerlegen!

Hi Robert Flo, apparently light has appeared and managed to disprove the assumption of a finite speed of light and make Albert Einstein look old. This is a find worthy of a moving price, of course. I had to react. I'm excited. Not measuring is a complete impossibility. Because there's no measuring device that you can measure light with, that's a good start, but you can't measure it very easily. Even your eyes contain receptors. light and can be considered measuring devices. There are also efficient photodetectors in the technology that go through the photoelectric effect, which was first explained by Einstein and earned him the Nobel Prize for the automobile effect.

Electrons are released from their bond by absorbing a photon. Typical digital camera sensors also rely on a form of the photoelectric effect. But you can say something, for example, that you can see light, but you cannot measure it, although the world is full of light measuring devices, and you can. for example, stating that light has a certain speed No, that is not a statement, it is based on observations and measurements, just think of Toni Maroni, you already know that you can measure the speed of light and he is right, in principle it is can. It measures the speed of light like any other speed by determining the time it takes for light to travel a certain distance.

The only problem is that light is incredibly fast, the speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 3 x 10 to the power of 8 meters. per second, but there are also methods to measure speeds as high as we will see in a moment. This is because we are based on an erroneous view of the world. If the sun is 149 million kilometers away, then it needs light. about to reach the earth to meet 8 minutes yes, that's how it is for about 8 minutes we see a sunset although the sun has already set the sun sets but it does not set the sun moves away and we see an optical illusion we see a big sun in the horizon or depending on the atmosphere a small sun is definitely going backwards oh no, not that old hat again there are no sunsets they are not optical illusions.

I've demonstrated it so many times in my videos that I don't want to get into it. Here again in detail I just saw these recordings so tight with a solar filter that when the sun moves away it would have to change its apparent size, especially when the sun is closer to you and that is the case around midday, but not Yes you don't see any apparent change in size here, no matter where on Earth you are, you seriously believe that there is an optical illusion that compensates for the apparent change in size expected for each observer, what about things you can easily claim? and you don't even have a service to back up your claim as a last attempt at The direction was not very successful because you took a compilation of a real RTL documentary and talked about recording your life or that of others, that's even one of my favorite evidence is that the recording of my life here is the recording of my life here and that is why there is no speed of light, so due to the supposed optical illusion that you postulated, there is no speed of light because it only refers to the fact that that the sun is 149 million kilometers away and it takes light 8 minutes to reach the earth and this is how the speed of light turns out.

So the whole system of light, our terminology for light is based on a lie and a theory. Did you get that idea? I'm quite wrong. Let me summarize your statements. You believe that the speed of light was defined by the distance from the sun and the time it takes for light from the sun to reach the earth. Believing that these two quantities are a lie and that a theory is just a theory is, of course, a very bad argument because in science the term theory has a different meaning than in everyday life, where one likes to understand the theory.

As the opposite of practice, a good theory is the highest that can be achieved in science, but there is nothing more than truth or fact. A good theory is characterized by being able to correctly explain the observation and, ideally, it does so in order to make predictions. A theory must be falsifiable, that is, it can be verified through lenses and repeatable experiments. If something is a theory in the scientific sense, it should in no way be understood negatively as you present it. You simply state that it is the distance to the sun. is a lie and suggests that if you just made such a bold assumption that the distance to the sun is a lie, you should provide some evidence for this, you would have to analyze the various methods of determining the distance and clearly show where these methods are supposedly flawed. .

That would be the case. But interestingly, the distance is not based on a lie as you claim, but rather an established method of determining distance. An example of this method uses distances to the planet, which can. It can be easily measured using radar, for example, but parallax can also be used. Here we see a transit of Venus observed from distant places. This change can be. It is then used to determine the distance to Venus. This is known from the easily observable orbital period of Venus and Earth around the Sun. The distance to Earth is determined using Ketter's third law.

Through observations and measurements, a distance a is reached. The Sun is about 150 million kilometers away. Other methods give the same result, so it can be proven that the distance is not a lie, which interests me a lot. The question is how do you figure out how you came up with this 8 minute light travel time and what measurement method. Do you think it could be used? Suppose the Earth is in a perfectly circular orbit. The scales, of course, are not correct here, so light needs 8 minutes from that Sun to the Earth. Do you want to measure it with a stopwatch?

So how do you know when to start measuring? Hopefully we agree that to measure speed you have to measure a distance and a time. How do you imagine that because there is no scientific experiment that can actually measure light? and they could claim that the light would spread throughout the universe because everyone knows that when you turn on the light at point A, the light source immediately and directly illuminates the point and there is no delay between turning it on and off, why then they are seriously lying . Tell us about light because you can't see any delay after turning on a lamp, the speed of light is infinite for you.

You really think your eyes and brain are fast enough to notice such a delay. here At 30 frames per second, a still image is displayed every 30 seconds, and yet you see fluid motion because your perception is simply too slow and you want to see a delay after a lamp turns on, which makes me reminds a bit of that He claims that there can be no curvature of the earth because the water in the bathtub appears flat. You need much greater distances or faster instruments to measure this delay. Your perception just isn't enough if your friend Nicki claps.

At the other end of the curse, delay can be perceived due to the finite speed of sound. It was really doubtful that it would only work at longer distances. Her method of measuring the speed of light is completely inadequate, so let's see how. You could actually do this, although the speed of light was not defined by the distance to the sun as you stated, space with its great distances lends itself to making claims about the speed of light, let's look at the sketch again, then the earth orbits But we can't easily measure the 8 minute light time around the sun because we don't know when the light begins, so to speak.

Even if the sun periodically darkens and brightens, that will not help us, but how. How about a very powerful lamp that turns on every 12 hours for an hour and then turns off again? We could observe this lamp from the earth and look at the clock every time the lamp is turned on, let's say in our example that would be the case at 1 a.m. m. or at 1 p.m. m. because the lamp turns on exactly every 12 hours, the pointer. It is always in the same place when we see the lamp turn on, logical or whatever. When the Earth is on the opposite side of the orbit, when the speed of light is infinite, so there is no delay, we still observe that the pointer is at 1 when the lamp is turned on, the light needs a certain amount of time, but our screen changes according to the transit time of light, by the way, it does not matter if the period is 12 hours or some other duration, what matters is that a change would have to be observed in the times in which the speed of the light is finite, but we have something like our hypothetical signal lamp, yes, the group and its moons can be observed very easily, this was already possible.

In the 17th century, Io, Jupiter's moon, is especially suitable for this type of signal, since it moves almost on the ecliptic and its orbit is almost circular. Its orbital period is about 42 and a half hours, so it can be easily observed. and, for example, interpret the moment in which it passes in front of Jupiter when the lamp is lit and note the times. These measurements are made when the Earth is close to Jupiter and further away a change in time if velocity should be detected. of light is finite and precise. This is also the first thing that is observed.

This phenomenon was noticed by the Danish astronomer Sin Romans in the 17th century. This was the first proof that the speed of light must be finite. , you can also estimate the speed of light. This experiment can still be repeated today. Example with the P1000. Furthermore, there is another way to demonstrate the finitude of the speed of light based on large distances in space. An interesting phenomenon that many. People don't even know it's the so-called annual device. Let me show you what we do at Stellarium. You've probably heard of a small Star Trek simulation or recordings of line traces that make the movement of the sky appear. visible Due to the rotation of the Earth, the stars appear to rotate clockwise around the southern point of the sky and the North Star rotates counterclockwise around the northern point of the sky which is quite close to the north celestial pole, but not exactly on him, let's focus. the celestial pole and let's get a little closer.

Let's turn off the atmosphere so you can see the stars better. With a small script we can create a screenshot every 2 minutes. Now you can see how the stars appear to rotate counterclockwise. With the free Star Stacks software we can combine individual screenshots to simulate a long exposure. As a result, we see a typical image of a star with concentric circles around the sky. What if instead of two minutes we used exactly that amount of time? the earth needs a revolution. This is a sidereal day that lasts a little less than 24 hours. I adapt the script so that a screenshot is generated every seven sidereal days for several years, the stars must still remain in exactly the same place or as.

You can see that the stars seem to follow small circles, but when we cover the screenshots we see the circles clearly strange or let's reduce our elevation angle and look at the result this time we get small ellipses and if we look at the plane of the equator now just how we see the lines , the position of the stars deviates a little from what is expected throughout the year, so that the stars appear to follow small circles perpendicular to the direction of the Earth's motion; This is the so-called annual operation. It not only demonstrates that the Earth moves around the Sun, but also the finite speed of light, since only in this way can the observation be conclusively explained.

This phenomenon was discovered in the 18th century by the British astronomer James Bradley. raindrops is used to illustrate this. The rain should tilt the umbrella a little because the angle of inclination depends on the speed of the person and the speed of the rain. Similarly, starlight reaches us through the finite speed of light and velocity. of the earth at a certain angle due to the approximately circular motion that the earth around the sun changes throughout the year, so we can observe a circular displacement perpendicular to the direction of the Earth's motion. The measured displacement of just over 20 arc seconds fits well with the Earth's speed of 100,000 km/h and the speed of light of 100,000 kilometers per hour around the Sun.

However, this is the story the raindrops are Just an analogy for a correct calculation of the phenomenon, the theory of special relativity is needed. The classical formula and the relativistic formula only differ in a constant factor that has a very close influence, therefore the results barely differ from each other and, However, I think it is important to point out. By the way, the same effect also guarantees that the sun appears slightly displaced throughout the year. As I said, you can use this device to measure approx. 20 seconds of arc Let's make a small rule of three: 365 days times 24 hours times 60 minutes, that is, the approximate duration of a year in minutes 360 degrees is related to one revolution of the Earth's orbit as the time it is about to collide with the Earth for 8. minutes 8 minutes we see a sunsetof sun although the sun has already set, you can actually measure them for about eight minutes and without a chronometer these 20 arcsecond devices are definitely within the resolution range of the P1000 with an extensive series of observations scheduled for a year, it should be able measure this value yourself if everything is supposedly a lie as you claim, then how do these constant waits occur?

Don't you think the statement is based on a lie: the sun became? Accidental optical illusions look exactly as expected on the spherical Earth, so why are they lying to us about light? It's a force they can't control and we're not supposed to know it. Why do you think we shouldn't know who it belonged to? a finite speed of light benefit because theoretically it can also be shown that a bumblebee cannot fly, Robert, seriously, you already know this is just an anecdote and a popular example of an apparent paradox. Of course, a bumblebee can theoretically fly too.

The assumption about the origin of the anecdote is based on a joke by students who claim that bumblebees cannot fly according to the laws of aerodynamics, but this, of course, is nonsense. In theory, they could only fly if they were supposed to have wings. bumblebees are stars, which they are not, so the anecdote is not evidence of a discrepancy between theory and practice as you suggest, but rather about the complexity of the model's assumptions, it shows that the simplified assumption of rigid wings in This example also represents It is a great simplification of reality to describe it sensibly, nothing more and nothing less, but people like to use simplification for obvious reasons.

You also have to know where the limits are. For example, it is completely legitimate here on Earth for many applications like this. such as assuming an infinitely high speed of light, a simplification that can be justified by the high speed of light, but this simplification reaches its limits when considering Jupiter's moon Io observed in the second part, then we will see how the speed of light light light can be determined in the laboratory and how do you think Michaelson Morley's experiment should have disproved Albert Einstein. At this point I would like to thank everyone who supports my channel by subscribing and sharing, as well as through channel memberships and patrons if you wish too. to support me, you can find it on the left in the description, thank you.

I would also love to visit my Discord server, so be careful, subscribe, more people, subscribe, subscribe, subscribe in the attachment. I would like to briefly show you what happens if you take precision into account when simulating annual aberration? As you can see, the stars no longer seem to follow a circular motion but rather a spiral motion because the Earth is not a perfect sphere but is slightly flattened at the poles due to the Attraction of First of all, the pairs of the sun and the moon that change the direction of the Earth's axis. This precision movement has a cycle of approximately 26,000 years.

As a result, the celestial profile also changes over time because the north celestial pole is centered. the simulation and changes its position, it looks like this. As if the stars were moving away, you can also see this effect when comparing current and old footage of Star Trek, both in terms of the theme of the sky always looking the same, so that's okay