The Charles Ward

cthia wrote:

tlb wrote: quote="Jonathan_S"
Still can’t see why such a delay would be expected to roughly equal the 8m 20s lightspeed delay from the sun. (Which as I understood it was the original hypothesis of the experiment)/quote

Like you I do not believe the time lag has anything to do with distance from the Sun. I expect it is tied to the rotational speed of the Earth.

Thing is, it's a simple enough experiment to reproduce. And totally free. Seek your own truths and I think you shall be pleasantly surprised. Tlb's info regarding the gameshow quiz is interesting, which leads me to want to try another experiment testing the time I can actually see the sun with the listed time for sunrise for my locale.

v interesting!
I must admit that I tend to agree with Jonathan and tlb on this one - I can't see why the 8 mins 20 sec - which is quite an exact time... can you give [or point to] a more detailed explanation on why that should be?

isaac_newton wrote:
v interesting!
I must admit that I tend to agree with Jonathan and tlb on this one - I can't see why the 8 mins 20 sec - which is quite an exact time... can you give [or point to] a more detailed explanation on why that should be?

Agreed, there is virtually nothing in the intrastellar medium to significantly slow infrared frequencies separate from observable frequencies. It has to be atmospheric effects.

cthia wrote:

tlb wrote: quote="Jonathan_S"
Still can’t see why such a delay would be expected to roughly equal the 8m 20s lightspeed delay from the sun. (Which as I understood it was the original hypothesis of the experiment)/quote

Like you I do not believe the time lag has anything to do with distance from the Sun. I expect it is tied to the rotational speed of the Earth.

Thing is, it's a simple enough experiment to reproduce. And totally free. Seek your own truths and I think you shall be pleasantly surprised. Tlb's info regarding the gameshow quiz is interesting, which leads me to want to try another experiment testing the time I can actually see the sun with the listed time for sunrise for my locale.

isaac_newton wrote:v interesting!
I must admit that I tend to agree with Jonathan and tlb on this one - I can't see why the 8 mins 20 sec - which is quite an exact time... can you give [or point to] a more detailed explanation on why that should be?

This experiment always garners so much interest and just as much skepticism. Believe me, I understand. Yet the data is conclusive from my seventh grade class and a few times since then with friends in various places in the US during my lifetime.

Regarding the 8 min 20 sec. Yes, that time is very specific, and it is meant to be. Let's call it the "control" part of the experiment. No one should feel any photons on their face less than that specific time!*

For completeness, there were people who didn't feel anything upwards of 12 minutes, but there was a wind chill then. Yet, there are people who consistently pegged the chart in less than 9 minutes. I hit less than 9 minutes every time except once @ 9:37 seconds. In the seventh grade, two girls were less than 10 seconds off! In the seventh grade, I thought there would be minutes -- past the target time -- before we felt heat. Nope!

Heat travels at speed of light.

*If your face is numb from being slapped too many times by your significant other, you should excuse yourself from the experiment. LOL

I had a guy duplicate the experiment with a magnifying glass above his face at the right angle and distance. Less than 25 seconds off projected time, every time!

I must say. You guys are much nicer about your objections than some of my friends over the many years I've conducted the experiment. Thanks. LOL

"But the light and the accompanying heat has already arrived here. It shouldn't take that long."

That objection, along with Jonathan's full disk objection are the two main objections. Even so! Although, the full disk explanation and atmospheric phenomena may conspire to coincidentally impact the results. shrug.

Oh my. My email and text messages are blowing up. Ok, answering some common questions.

Keep in mind that these were seventh grade minds in science class. We were discussing the speed of light and the amount of time required for light to reach the earth from the sun. Back then we didn't have an exact 8 min 20 sec. We used 8 min 12 seconds. It was exciting to a bunch of 13-yr-olds that light could get to us so quickly and questions were posed to the teacher. "How was it measured?" "How can we be sure?" etc., etc.

Then my brilliant self thought I saw something wrong with one of Mrs. Williams statements. She said that the heat from the sun travels the exact same speed as the light. I said something like "But Mrs. Williams, that means that we should feel the heat from the sun on our faces as soon as we see the sun. But we don't." I recalled playing outside and noticing a bit of difference between sunlight and warmth and decided to experiment. I couldn't, and can't now, explain why it seems to coincide with the 8 min 20 seconds. (8 min. 12 seconds we used then).

Many students predicted warmth as soon as the sun is sighted, which really seems intuitive to seventh graders. I said there'd be a few minutes lag time between warmth and sighting, from recent experiences as a kid playing outside. However, I only thought there'd be a few minutes lag at best.

I had some bottle rockets one morn, early that same winter leftover from New Years and wanted to launch them in the dark. Nothing was going to catch fire in the winter. That's when I first noticed the delay between warmth and sight of the sun. I was only 13 then. Anyway, the results of the experiment were surprising. Even for the teacher.

cthia wrote:An aside:

BTW, is there anyone in the forum who hasn't stood outside on a very cold morning before sunrise and recorded the elapsed time between the moment you saw the sunrise and the moment you began to feel its warmth?

I conducted an experiment in a seventh grade class doing exactly that, removing everyone's watches. The teacher was impressed. I was happy, because she was a real looker. I find myself reproducing the experiment whenever I have the chance, just to make sure the sun hasn't moved.

8 min 20 seconds should be the results. Try closing your eyes. It's more effective.

I did not get into this before, because I just took this as an anecdote about a young, smart student using an amusing coincidence to score points with an attractive teacher. Clearly I think the time lag is due to adsorption, refraction and (I should add) reflection of radiation as the Earth turns from night to day. Fair enough if you do not; but to call this a scientific experiment, it must be used to prove something. The actual time lag is just a data point and can mean different things based on the physical model. What is your mechanism that would cause the time lag to be near to that of the time for radiation (both light and heat) to travel from the Sun to the Earth?

PS. The time for sunrise in the paper may be the apparent time due to refraction.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:An aside:

BTW, is there anyone in the forum who hasn't stood outside on a very cold morning before sunrise and recorded the elapsed time between the moment you saw the sunrise and the moment you began to feel its warmth?

I conducted an experiment in a seventh grade class doing exactly that, removing everyone's watches. The teacher was impressed. I was happy, because she was a real looker. I find myself reproducing the experiment whenever I have the chance, just to make sure the sun hasn't moved.

8 min 20 seconds should be the results. Try closing your eyes. It's more effective.

I did not get into this before, because I just took this as an anecdote about a young, smart student using an amusing coincidence to score points with an attractive teacher. Clearly I think the time lag is due to adsorption, refraction and (I should add) reflection of radiation as the Earth turns from night to day. Fair enough if you do not; but to call this a scientific experiment, it must be used to prove something. The actual time lag is just a data point and can mean different things based on the physical model. What is your mechanism that would cause the time lag to be near to that of the time for radiation (both light and heat) to travel from the Sun to the Earth?

PS. The time for sunrise in the paper may be the apparent time due to refraction.

For the record. I do not disagree that the explanation lies, simply must lie, within the notion of atmospheric phenomena that I can not explain. The reason I reserve my vote is because of the surprising proximity of the results to the "control" time. It could simply be a coincidence. A surprising coincidence, however.

cthia wrote:For the record. I do not disagree that the explanation lies, simply must lie, within the notion of atmospheric phenomena that I can not explain. The reason I reserve my vote is because of the surprising proximity of the results to the "control" time. It could simply be a coincidence. A surprising coincidence, however.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the difference was because heat traveled slower than light (note that both are electromagnetic waves that travel at the same speed of light in vacuum). But the Sun is continually radiating both heat and light, so the expected time lag would be the difference to travel from the horizon to the observer and then 8 minutes would mean heat is traveling at about running speed.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:For the record. I do not disagree that the explanation lies, simply must lie, within the notion of atmospheric phenomena that I can not explain. The reason I reserve my vote is because of the surprising proximity of the results to the "control" time. It could simply be a coincidence. A surprising coincidence, however.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the difference was because heat traveled slower than light (note that both are electromagnetic waves that travel at the same speed of light in vacuum). But the Sun is continually radiating both heat and light, so the expected time lag would be the difference to travel from the horizon to the observer and then 8 minutes would mean heat is traveling at about running speed.

One thing that has been a constant is the numerous and quite energetic explanations, some of which have spanned the frequency of emotions. Awe. Humor. Excitement. Insanity., etc.

Incidentally, the most interesting explanation I've heard, thus far, came from the mind of a 13-yr-old girl in that very same class who was shockingly shy and rarely spoke up...

"I think it is because heat rises and the atmosphere is warmed before it radiates to the ground."


If so, then it is rather interesting that that process appears to equal the "control time."



My last charity bike of the season has just now been assembled! YES!! FREE AT LAST!!! I'M FREE AT LAST!!!! YESSIREE, I'M FREE AT LAST!!!!!

I know that the CW shouldn't be too quick to seek battle. Though I'm certain that fact won't sit too well with Ginger if push comes to shove. She'll push and shove back if so.

"Run away. Run away!” she murmured under her breath.
It was one of her favorite lines from one of the incredibly ancient “movies” to which Duchess Harrington had introduced her (and much of the rest of HMS Wayfarer’s crew) on her very first cruise. Fortunately, however, none of her bridge crew heard her. Somehow she doubted it would have comported well with the gravitas of a proper CO.

snip

It felt…odd to be about to run away from the enemy, but Ginger Lewis had been aboard another armed fleet auxiliary which had taken on battlecruisers, and she hadn’t enjoyed the experience.

However, what would be the likely operational doctrine of the Taylor class auxiliaries? In the past, these auxiliaries would hyper in a system, drop off their load and disappear back into hyper until needed, in the midst of battle. They also didn't have the accel to keep pace with the party. In SoV, the CW was kept right along with Tremaine's force. I always thought that leaving a ship behind near the hyper limit risks getting that ship captured or destroyed if an enemy force happens to hyper in on top of it.

So, what should be the operational doctrine of the new David Taylor class supply ships? Should it change or remain the same?