Measuring Light Speed Without a Clock

Will there be a procedure described to determine revolutions per minute of this shaft without using a clock?

”This one way speed can be compared to reflection speed, and determine if reflection takes time, and if so, how much time.”

Will there be a procedure described to determine if reflection takes time, and if so, how much time… particularly the ‘how much time’ part, without a clock?

We can measure light using fast gating photomultipliers. Our fastest device will measure how long it takes a beam of light (in air) to travel 1 foot.

The laser would have to be a pulse of very short duration. Can the duration of the pulse be determined without a clock? The laser would have to burn a hole in the paper. How then, can it reflect off the paper to come back and then burn another hole in the first paper?

Speed is meaningless without a clock...

I propose that the rotating shaft is a clock. A rotational ticker. Once set, time is constant thru-out the measurement. And of course one needs a clock for this.

But no change in time measurement is needed. A common time zone. This avoids needing a start time and a stop time. Using offset instead. The offset is preserved.

One can change the proportion of shaft length, disk diameter and RPM for engineering convenience and confirmation.

One way speed can be compared with previous reflection speeds. If reflection turn around, takes no time, and no acceleration, the reflection time should be equal to, two legs of one way time.

And of course clocks and time, is needed for comparison.

If we could pivot shaft vertically and horizontally, we could confirm directional differences in speed, or lack of. From motion and/or gravity. Or anything else.

Of course one can always say a space media, sets that speed. This does not explain the speed, it just measures it.

And again of course, this measures the flux speed, not the photon speed.

That has to be done with sequential singular photons…… radio. And a common rotational time.

Gibberish. Photons are always involved whether its radio, radar, lasers or quasars. Flux is a measure of the effect of many photons. Normal radios can't emit one photon. It takes specialized equipment for that.

/https://www.quandela.com/resources/quantum-computing-glossary/single-photon-sources/

How does a rotating paper disk record that light has fallen on it and reflect it too?

This is a straight-line measurement, not a reflection.

This result can be compared to the previous reflection results.

The laser shoots straight down the shaft, going thru both disk edges. Causing an offset to the holes/streaks.

If light were instant, it would be like freezing the shaft, and the holes would be in alignment.

We could put a reflective strip on the first disk, and pre-bore the first hole. The laser can be left on. Put strip on outside of both disks for balance.

The first burst thru that moving hole would only mar the target disk. But repeated burst would eventually color and burn a hole. Giving repeatability and more credibility to the measurement.

Re the Post: Measuring Light Speed Without a Clock
Having read the description I find it very misleading, not to mention pointless. As we already have the capability to accurately measure the speed of light, why try to measure it without a clock, especially noting the engineering requirements of a strong rotating shaft running at high speed on magnetic bearings with paper discs mounted on the ends and all in a vacumn chamber !

So how thick would these paper discs need to be to withstand being rotated at high speeds to stop any wobble, deformation etc.
Considering the money and time that would need to be invested in all the precision equipment needed, it is, imho, a complete and utter waste of time and effort, especially as clocks would be needed anyway (measure Shaft speed for example RPM ).

What is your standard for time measurement?

It is based on the present definition of light.

Think about it.

My standard for time measurement is some form or version of a clock.

I have several different flashlights, and I cannot quite figure out how to time a three minute egg with any of them. If I use a light to illuminate the clock face, is that cheating?

HTRN, could you pretend that I cannot make sense of your hint and explain this more completely?

The speed of light is the basis for all our time measurements, in one way or another.

It is the maximum speed in our universe. Any time measurement actually goes back to that speed limit. All units are basically subdivisions of C, no matter what they are called.

Okay.

That isn’t my understanding of how any recognized method of time metrology works.

It is a hard concept to grasp, and even harder to explain and I don't know if I can.

Well, okay. Let me give you one of the stumbling blocks that I cannot reconcile, perhaps a smaller bite of the issue can be explained.

A meter is defined by International Standard (IS) as the distance traveled by a specified beam of visible light in a specified amount of time, X. It sounds like you are telling us that a second (or some decimal of a second) is defined as the elapsed amount of time that a beam of light takes to travel some specified distance, X’.

So… distance is defined by a time constant, yet that time constant is defined by a distance constant that is defined by a time constant.

I’m stumbling over this part, can you (or someone) maybe speak to this particular point, clear this up? I realize that I may be thinking sideways here, so please do straighten me out if I have run off the rails.

Continuing comment #22:

So to boil down paragraph 2 and 3 a little bit, make it easier to chew, we could restate

1) One second is defined as the time it takes a beam of light to travel exactly 186,000 statute miles.

2) 186,000 statute miles is defined as the distance a beam of light travels in exactly one second.

Please ignore the loose distance rounding.

There needs to be another comparator somewhere.

Maybe this is better:

If you have a scale calibrated from 0 to 100,you can subdivide it into as many smaller measurements as you please, but you must know the upper limit of your range to know the value of the divisions.

Without an upper limit, you just don't know the value of the divisions. C is the upper limit in our universe.

Now, clear as mud?

Okay, yeah, I get that.

When driving my 2007 Hummer H2 Sport Utility Truck along the open highways of our great nation at, according to the thoughtfully provided analog speedometer, 60 miles per hour, this could alternately be expressed as moving along at 0.0000000896c.

But how is a definitive unit of time derived from this information?

[edit] Not trying to be argumentative, I really would like to understand your statement in #11 and #13. I cannot see how that could possibly work.

Guess I'll have to look this up!! I thought a meter (or any length) was defined as a certain number of wavelengths of a certain frequency (color) of light.

After looking, my memory is faulty! It is the distance traveled in a very tiny fraction of a second.

I prolly should have checked before I posted it!

I guess we sort of hijacked Haymaker's thread.

Happens sometimes. A thread of mine about clear plastic canning jars jumped the guardrail and became a somewhat heated disagreement about peas. Go figure!

It is the maximum speed in our universe. Even this needs to be more thoroughly explained! The speed of light varies in different materials. Look up Cerenkov Radiation which is when nuclear particles exceed the speed of light in water (as I understand it.)

But I have often wondered whether Cerenkov is similar to X-Rays, that is "braking radiation" but quite different in frequency.

Can an Egg Timer be classed as a Clock or a mechanical device ??
I would hate to imagine what a 3 Minute Egg looks like but I would think the white is not cooked through. I time my Eggs for 5.45 mins but they are either Large 5.45 or Extra Large 6.05.

I like a firm white with a runny yoke !

Question : how many grains of sand make up a minute in an 5 minute Egg-Timer ?

“Can an Egg Timer be classed as a Clock or a mechanical device ??“

I dunno. HTRN wants me to shine a light a tape measure extended out to about 16,740,000 statute miles so I won’t overcook a chicken egg for the dog.

Hello.... test..... test.

I have tried to post but it says it's spam.

Here is an explanation for what is going on:

https://cr4.globalspec.com/announcement/830/Spam-Filter-False-Positives

It's happened to me twice, once because it had a Link to a company product, even though the original Poster had quoted a Product name without a problem. I simply removed the manaufacturers name and my post was published !!
Hush, a Global Spec IT employee explained it to me, its an AI system they use, like all AI systems sometimes it goofs up !!

Spacetime eliminates the concept of a physical reference. It replaces reference with a ratio, of two reference standards. It removes the quantum character of the length and time of mass energy. And all particles so far, all mass so far, has this character. Do they all have the same time?

Physicality(spacetime) obeys the math of observation, NOT the true structure and motion, that is just an indirect confusing illusion. Physicality depends on where you’re watching. And how fast you are moving. This is modern physicality. In which life sprang forth. And fills the universe.

But the observed event does not depend on where you are and how you are moving. It’s the same dynamic for all observers. Doesn’t light prove that? And doesn’t the same dynamic have the same time? Seems like time is the same everywhere. No matter the distance, or the speed. Only the appearance of the event changes with distance and motion. Not the event. The substance of length and time are constant pillars and do not change.

That’s my observation.

And then there’s the measurement of these events. The relative angle and speed of the measurement change the normal(static) interaction period. The interaction rate...and the interaction duration. This is the so-called time and length changes. It’s mechanical. It’s simple. Space is not a sponge.

And instrument matter also has an inertia which gives the measurement delay reactance… and then a counter reaction. The matter rings like a bell, which is added to and distorts the measurement. Only half the heat(energy) of a RX antenna comes from RXing the propagation, the other half is from the inertia reactance of the antenna. Light is only half of what you think it is.

This ringing filters and dulls fast phase changes(arrival time). For now the ringing has to be disturbed, not just the static inertia…. At first interaction. Arrival time constantly changes with motion. Matter can not keep up with these changes. In real same time.

Think of light as a buzz. And it buzzes the matter with that same buzz. The light can change buzz in an instant(with motion, space displacement), but the matter needs time to change the buzz. Because matter has inertia, light does not.

This is measurement inertial error. And it’s not because of spacetime.

There is hope. Some of these new quantum sensors might have some of the non-reactive, non inertial properties, that will allow for detection of fast small changes.

I believe a non reactive detection of a radio carrier will be quite surprising.

This was my rejected post. Was unaware of the spam issue.

Thanks and don’t worry about hijacking the thread.