De Sitter's experiment and the relative motion of photons with respect to the surface of the star
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 28 Jan 2010 12:42 On Jan 28, 11:18 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > train wrote: > >De Sitter's experiment that led to the conclusion that the speed of > >light was constant from the observation of binary stars is described > >here: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment > > >Assume that it is true that the speed of light emitted from the star > >is independent of the motion of the star towards and away from the > >Earth. > > >Consider the emission of photons at the points in the stars orbit > >where, in the Earth's FoR, the star is moving at its fastest, that is > >+ v and -v , at the 'leftmost' and 'rightmost' positions of the stars > >orbit as viewed from Earth. > > >The observer on Earth measures the speed each of these photons , call > >them A and B as traveling at C with respect to himself (which means in > >Earth's frame of Reference) > > >The Earth observer also sees, as agreed, the star moving at +v and -v > >in the instances listed above. > > >Does the observer on Earth see the rate of separation of the photon > >from the surface of the star as c-v and c+v in the cases listed above? > > DeSitter told everyone what they wanted to hear so his work was not > scrutinised as much as it should have been. The point you must be clear > about is that we do not know what we are looking at, we do not know what > is *actually there*, we can only deduce what we are looking at by > interpretation of the observed data and we can only interpret using a > chosen theory. > > What DeSitter did was interpret the data assuming SR is true, claim the > result as being what was *actually there* and then claim source > dependence must be wrong as what he said was *actually there* wouldn't > produce the data he started with if light was source dependent. It is > completely circular. > > The correct way of looking at it is: > 1/ We have no way of knowing what is actually there. > 2/ If we apply SR we will conclude that what is actually there is X > 3/ If we apply emission theory we will conclude that what is actually > there is Y. > > The problem is that with SR the prediction of X is straight forward as > SR says that all light travels at c w.r.t the observer observing it so > the data you are looking at is the same as you would see if you were at > the source. > > Emission theory says that the data you get is not as it would be at the > source as light speed is source dependent. There is no simple algorithm > whereby you can feed in the data and work out what is "actually there". > The only way of doing it is by an iterative process whereby you make a > guess at what is there, work out what data would reach earth, compare > with the actual data and refine your guess until you have a suitable > match. This could not really be attempted before the computer became > available. There are other complications such as the extinction effect. > > There are some things which are easier to explain assuming source > dependence and some easier to explain assuming SR but Cosmology is a > very inexact science anyway. > -- > John Kennaugh No, he did exactly the opposite. What he said was 1. If the orbiting binary had a uniform orbit that obeys orbital mechanics like what we observe everywhere else, and 2. If the speed of light were ballistic as *Ritz* suggested, then 3. We would *necessarily* observe from these two premises a lead-lag phenomenon in the orbits as seen here. Since (3) did not match any data available, then one of the premises must be wrong. What you are suggesting is that, rather than chucking (2), perhaps we should consider keeping (2) and chucking (1). If this is the case, then we'd have to understand why the orbits of binary stars would be different than other orbiting systems, and would in fact have to have a counter-lead/counter-lag eccentricity at that location in order to exactly account for the effect that would be introduced by (1). This would chuck Newtonian gravity by a significant margin for those systems -- in fact by a margin that is much, much bigger than the disparity between Newtonian gravity and general relativity. This was also looked at in papers that used DeWitt's as a reference.
From: John Kennaugh on 29 Jan 2010 09:50 Tom Roberts wrote: >John Kennaugh wrote: >> DeSitter told everyone what they wanted to hear [...] > >Your OUTRAGEOUS bias so pervades your thought processes that you are >unable to read anything about physics. Either grow up and learn how to >read, or get a hobby more suited to your abilities. Your abuse is wasted. I will stick with argument. > >And, of course, in 1913 not everyone "wanted to hear" that SR was >correct. You REALLY don't understand either physics or history. I would be VERY interested in any reference you have of Ritz's theory having been championed after his death in 1909. He was written out of history as far as I can tell. Maxwell dominated thinking. Einstein rescued Maxwell, Ritz suggested that physics had it wrong. An unforgivable sin even in recent times (ref Dingle). "Ritz's work has been suppressed not by any act of censorship, or proscription, but by the far more effective method of entirely ignoring it" Waldron - the electrodynamics of Ritz - SST Vol2 No3. >> The correct way of looking at it is: >> 1/ We have no way of knowing what is actually there. >> 2/ If we apply SR we will conclude that what is actually there is X >> 3/ If we apply emission theory we will conclude that what is actually >>there is Y. > >That is NOT the correct way of looking at it. > >The CORRECT way, the SCIENTIFIC way, is to model the distant binary >star system, And exactly HOW do you do that without *assuming* a theory to translate the data into a model. Your model is then consistent with the theory you used to construct it with. >compute how the light emitted from such a system would appear to an >observer on earth, and then compare the computation with the >observations. Of course to test theories one must do this for each >theory of interest (here SR and emission theory). DeSitter was incapable of even attempting to construct a model assuming emission theory to be correct because it can only be done using an iterative process and a computer. DeSitter was selective in which data he used and he assumed the model produced by assuming SR, was a true representation of what was there and simply showed that that model is inconsistent with emission theory. Waldron analysed it in some detail in 1977. " For the velocity of a member of a binary system to be sufficiently great to give the effects de Sitter suggested, the two stars would have to be so far away and so close together that even the most powerful telescope on earth today (which had not been constructed in 1913, when de Sitter wrote) could not resolve them. It is apparent that the determination of an orbit is by no means simple, and de Sitter's statement that orbits are found to agree with Kepler's laws is not so firmly based on fact as one would like. Turning now to spectroscopic binaries, which have short periods a few days or less and may be relatively distant, The difficulties in determining the orbit are explained in Spencer Jones (1956) and in Beer (1956, pp.1387-1407) but involves measuring the following elements (i) a sin i, where a is the semi-major axis and i the angle made by the plane of the orbit with the line from the earth to the binary system a and i cannot be separately determined. (ii) The eccentricities of the orbits. (iii) The angle, in the plane of the orbit, from the node to the peri-astron point. (The periastron point is the point in the orbit of one component of the binary system when it is closest to the other component. The nodes are the points at which the orbit is intersected by the plane perpendicular to the line of sight from earth to the binary system and containing the attracting star.) (iv) The epoch of the periastron point, i.e. the time at which the star is at the periastron point. (v) The periodic time of revolution. (vi) The velocity of the centre of gravity of the system. These elements are deduced from measurements of the shifts of spectrum lines, on the assumption that Kepler's laws hold. It would be absurd to doubt that they do hold, but it should be noticed that the velocities involved are fairly small compared with the velocity of light, and the Doppler effects are therefore small, so that considerable errors are involved even if the velocity of light is invariant. If it is not invariant, it is still possible to measure the maximum Doppler shift, and the shifts at certain other times, and to deduce some kind of orbit, even though it is assumed erroneously that the velocity of light is invariant. The periodic time will be accurately measured whichever may be the case. If the velocity of light is assumed invariant, and if in fact this is not the case, the orbit deduced will, of course, be erroneous, but there will be no way of discovering the fact since direct visual observation of the motions of the stars is ruled out. Even if such observations were possible, only the projection of the orbit onto a plane perpendicular to the line of sight would be observed. The determination of the orbit of a spectroscopic binary is not easy, and there is no way to check that the deductions are correct. As for whether or not the orbits obey Kepler's laws, let us consider the laws one by one. The first law states that the orbit is elliptical. This has been assumed in calculating the elements from the observations, so that there is no check of this law. The fact that with a wrong theory of the velocity of light one may calculate the wrong ellipse will not be apparent in the absence of an alternative method of observation, such as actually visiting the binary system in a space-ship. The second law states that the radius vector of the star in orbit sweeps out equal areas in equal times. Since only certain special positions can be determined (nodes, periastron point), there is no check of this law. The law can only be checked if the position of the star can be observed continuously through a substantial fraction of the period. This would be possible in the case of visual binaries, but as has just been noted effects due to the non invariance of the velocity of light would not be observable. The third law states that the square of the periodic time is proportional to the cube of the mean distance of the orbiting star from the centre of force. This law cannot be checked for two reasons. In the first place we do not know the distance (see (i) above), and in the second the proportionality constant depends on the mass, also unknown, of the one star about which the other is regarded as rotating. Truly, Kepler's laws have not been seen to have been broken, but this gives us no check on whether or not the velocity of light is invariant. If we could know something of the absolute dimensions of the orbit, and the masses of the stars, we could make a check on the velocity of light. If the light from a spectroscopic binary travels with a velocity (with respect to the earth) dependent on the velocity of the source star, it is to be expected that the light received at certain times will consist of components emitted at several different times. The be-haviour will be quite periodic, although the general pattern may be very complicated. [See Androcles for examples JK] Since the velocities of the star at different epochs will differ, the superimposed components will have Doppler shifts of differing amounts, so that spectrum lines will be observed resolved into a number of components. Struve (1956) reports apparently similar behaviour in the case of the double star Algol; at certain epochs a single line appears, while at others the line may split into two, four, or even six components. Attempts have been made to explain the phenomena in terms of magnetic fields, or of rates of rotation which vary with latitude, while some workers have postulated as many as six stars in the system, all except one being so faint as to be invisible. No success has been obtained with any of these hypotheses. It might be interesting to see if the Algol spectrum is reduced to order on assuming that the velocity of light is not invariant and that what is being observed is a superposition of light emitted at different epochs. [See Androcles ] Cepheid variable stars are stars whose brightness varies periodically. This variable brightness is attributed to periodic expansion and contraction of the star; its nearer surface moves alternately towards and away from the earth, causing an alternating Doppler shift which is observed together with the changes in luminosity. At the time when DeSitter put forward his suggestion, it had not been discovered what a Cepheid variable is; the discovery came a year later. Apparently until then no difficulty had been found in interpreting the spectrum of such a star in terms of hypothetical members of a binary system obeying Kepler's laws. This bears out what was said above about the possibility of deducing Kepler type orbits from such observations as are possible, even though the orbit deduced may bear no similarity to the reality of the situation. The light curve of a Cepheid variable, i.e. a plot of the brightness against time, exhibits very complicated behaviour, and at times the spectra of some Cepheids have been observed to split into several components. Again, it might be worth while investigating whether what is being observed is a superposition of light emitted at different times in the cycle, with different velocity relative to the earth. [See Androcles ] There is another point concerning the spectra of binary stars that is sometimes made and which needs answering. It is that when splitting of a spectral line of a binary star is observed, the line splits symmetrically, and the lines coalesce at the mid-point of their extreme positions. If the light which reaches us is travelling with a varying velocity, depending on the time at which it was emitted, it is scarcely to be expected that in all cases we are at just such a distance from the binary system that the light reaching us as the lines coalesce would have originated from both stars when their radial (with respect to earth) component of velocity was zero. On the other hand, this fact is explained if the light from both stars has a constant velocity, regardless of the velocity of the stars with respect to the earth at the time of emission. This objection to the ballistic theory fails to take into account the velocity of the binary system as a whole along the line of sight from the earth. We can only deduce this from an observation of the spectrum lines, and this extra degree of freedom which is not likely to be subject to an independent check for a very long time, if ever enables us to satisfy the above condition that has been denied. Any asymmetry of the motions of the spectrum lines from the two stars which may be observed can be attributed to a radial motion of the system as a whole; whether the right value of the radial velocity is deduced will depend on whether the theory of light used is the correct one, but the answer to the objection is that in general the motions of the spectrum lines will not be symmetrical; it is the resultant motion after deducting that due to radial motion of the stars that is symmetrical, and it is so because the effect of radial motion has been assumed to be such as to make it so." > >THAT is what De Sitter did, and he concluded that by modeling binary >star systems as two stars orbiting each other (using Newtonian >mechanics), the computations using emission theory do not agree with >the observations, but the computations using SR do. (He had to do this >statistically, not knowing the orientations or dimensions of the >various binary stars' orbits wrt their individual lines of sight, but >that does not change the conclusions.) > > >> The problem is that with SR the prediction of X is straight forward > >You don't seem to understand that you got it backwards: science is >about TESTING MODELS, not "predicting what is out there". It is >straightforward to model a pair of mutually-orbiting stars and compute >how the light should look, using Newtonian mechanics and either SR or >emission theory. Absolutely but there would be no point as you cannot construct such a system and test it. Neither can you choose an actual binary system, go and have a look to see what is *actually* there and then see whether what is seen from earth is as predicted by one theory or another. That is why what is done IS backwards. You have to start with the results from an undefined model and work backwards. You have no way of knowing what you are actually looking at. > But this straightforward computation using emission theory does not >agree with what is actually observed. ??? No such system has been constructed. >The fact that such computations using SR do agree with the observations >supports the notion that the visible objects we call "binary stars" >actually are two stars orbiting each other (as the name implies). Of >course visibly resolving the two stars also does that, but cannot be >done for many/most binaries, especially back in 1913. -- John Kennaugh ; evidence falsifying relativity can't be true as it is contrary to relativity :o)
From: Androcles on 29 Jan 2010 12:12 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:gJ1KqjFgWvYLFwj1(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... > Tom Roberts wrote: >>John Kennaugh wrote: >>> DeSitter told everyone what they wanted to hear [...] >> >>Your OUTRAGEOUS bias so pervades your thought processes that you are >>unable to read anything about physics. Either grow up and learn how to >>read, or get a hobby more suited to your abilities. > > Your abuse is wasted. I will stick with argument. > >> >>And, of course, in 1913 not everyone "wanted to hear" that SR was correct. >>You REALLY don't understand either physics or history. > > I would be VERY interested in any reference you have of Ritz's theory > having been championed after his death in 1909. He was written out of > history as far as I can tell. Maxwell dominated thinking. Einstein rescued > Maxwell, Ritz suggested that physics had it wrong. An unforgivable sin > even in recent times (ref Dingle). > > "Ritz's work has been suppressed not by any act of censorship, or > proscription, but by the far more effective method of entirely ignoring > it" Waldron - the electrodynamics of Ritz - SST Vol2 No3. > >>> The correct way of looking at it is: >>> 1/ We have no way of knowing what is actually there. >>> 2/ If we apply SR we will conclude that what is actually there is X >>> 3/ If we apply emission theory we will conclude that what is actually >>> there is Y. >> >>That is NOT the correct way of looking at it. >> >>The CORRECT way, the SCIENTIFIC way, is to model the distant binary star >>system, > > And exactly HOW do you do that without *assuming* a theory to translate > the data into a model. Your model is then consistent with the theory you > used to construct it with. > >>compute how the light emitted from such a system would appear to an >>observer on earth, and then compare the computation with the observations. >>Of course to test theories one must do this for each theory of interest >>(here SR and emission theory). > > DeSitter was incapable of even attempting to construct a model assuming > emission theory to be correct because it can only be done using an > iterative process and a computer. DeSitter was selective in which data he > used and he assumed the model produced by assuming SR, was a true > representation of what was there and simply showed that that model is > inconsistent with emission theory. > > Waldron analysed it in some detail in 1977. > > " For the velocity of a member of a binary system to be sufficiently great > to give the effects de Sitter suggested, the two stars would have to be so > far away and so close together that even the most powerful telescope on > earth today (which had not been constructed in 1913, when de Sitter wrote) > could not resolve them. It is apparent that the determination of an orbit > is by no means simple, and de Sitter's statement that orbits are found to > agree with Kepler's laws is not so firmly based on fact as one would like. > Turning now to spectroscopic binaries, which have short periods a few days > or less and may be relatively distant, The difficulties in determining the > orbit are explained in Spencer Jones (1956) and in Beer (1956, > pp.1387-1407) but involves measuring the following elements > > (i) a sin i, where a is the semi-major axis and i the angle made by the > plane of the orbit with the line from the earth to the binary system a and > i cannot be separately determined. > (ii) The eccentricities of the orbits. > (iii) The angle, in the plane of the orbit, from the node to the > peri-astron point. (The periastron point is the point in the orbit of one > component of the binary system when it is closest to the other component. > The nodes are the points at which the orbit is intersected by the plane > perpendicular to the line of sight from earth to the binary system and > containing the attracting star.) > (iv) The epoch of the periastron point, i.e. the time at which the star is > at the periastron point. > (v) The periodic time of revolution. > (vi) The velocity of the centre of gravity of the system. > > These elements are deduced from measurements of the shifts of spectrum > lines, on the assumption that Kepler's laws hold. It would be absurd to > doubt that they do hold, but it should be noticed that the velocities > involved are fairly small compared with the velocity of light, and the > Doppler effects are therefore small, so that considerable errors are > involved even if the velocity of light is invariant. If it is not > invariant, it is still possible to measure the maximum Doppler shift, and > the shifts at certain other times, and to deduce some kind of orbit, even > though it is assumed erroneously that the velocity of light is invariant. > The periodic time will be accurately measured whichever may be the case. > If the velocity of light is assumed invariant, and if in fact this is not > the case, the orbit deduced will, of course, be erroneous, but there will > be no way of discovering the fact since direct visual observation of the > motions of the stars is ruled out. Even if such observations were > possible, only the projection of the orbit onto a plane perpendicular to > the line of sight would be observed. > The determination of the orbit of a spectroscopic binary is not easy, and > there is no way to check that the deductions are correct. As for whether > or not the orbits obey Kepler's laws, let us consider the laws one by one. > > The first law states that the orbit is elliptical. This has been assumed > in calculating the elements from the observations, so that there is no > check of this law. The fact that with a wrong theory of the velocity of > light one may calculate the wrong ellipse will not be apparent in the > absence of an alternative method of observation, such as actually visiting > the binary system in a space-ship. > > The second law states that the radius vector of the star in orbit sweeps > out equal areas in equal times. Since only certain special positions can > be determined (nodes, periastron point), there is no check of this law. > The law can only be checked if the position of the star can be observed > continuously through a substantial fraction of the period. This would be > possible in the case of visual binaries, but as has just been noted > effects due to the non invariance of the velocity of light would not be > observable. > > The third law states that the square of the periodic time is proportional > to the cube of the mean distance of the orbiting star from the centre of > force. This law cannot be checked for two reasons. In the first place we > do not know the distance (see (i) above), and in the second the > proportionality constant depends on the mass, also unknown, of the one > star about which the other is regarded as rotating. Truly, Kepler's laws > have not been seen to have been broken, but this gives us no check on > whether or not the velocity of light is invariant. If we could know > something of the absolute dimensions of the orbit, and the masses of the > stars, we could make a check on the velocity of light. > > If the light from a spectroscopic binary travels with a velocity (with > respect to the earth) dependent on the velocity of the source star, it is > to be expected that the light received at certain times will consist of > components emitted at several different times. The be-haviour will be > quite periodic, although the general pattern may be very complicated. > [See Androcles for examples JK] > > Since the velocities of the star at different epochs will differ, the > superimposed components will have Doppler shifts of differing amounts, so > that spectrum lines will be observed resolved into a number of components. > Struve (1956) reports apparently similar behaviour in the case of the > double star Algol; at certain epochs a single line appears, while at > others the line may split into two, four, or even six components. Attempts > have been made to explain the phenomena in terms of magnetic fields, or of > rates of rotation which vary with latitude, while some workers have > postulated as many as six stars in the system, all except one being so > faint as to be invisible. No success has been obtained with any of these > hypotheses. It might be interesting to see if the Algol spectrum is > reduced to order on assuming that the velocity of light is not invariant > and that what is being observed is a superposition of light emitted at > different epochs. > [See Androcles ] > > Cepheid variable stars are stars whose brightness varies periodically. > This variable brightness is attributed to periodic expansion and > contraction of the star; its nearer surface moves alternately towards and > away from the earth, causing an alternating Doppler shift which is > observed together with the changes in luminosity. At the time when > DeSitter put forward his suggestion, it had not been discovered what a > Cepheid variable is; the discovery came a year later. > > Apparently until then no difficulty had been found in interpreting the > spectrum of such a star in terms of hypothetical members of a binary > system obeying Kepler's laws. > > This bears out what was said above about the possibility of deducing > Kepler type orbits from such observations as are possible, even though the > orbit deduced may bear no similarity to the reality of the situation. The > light curve of a Cepheid variable, i.e. a plot of the brightness against > time, exhibits very complicated behaviour, and at times the spectra of > some Cepheids have been observed to split into several components. Again, > it might be worth while investigating whether what is being observed is a > superposition of light emitted at different times in the cycle, with > different velocity relative to the earth. > [See Androcles ] > > There is another point concerning the spectra of binary stars that is > sometimes made and which needs answering. It is that when splitting of a > spectral line of a binary star is observed, the line splits symmetrically, > and the lines coalesce at the mid-point of their extreme positions. If the > light which reaches us is travelling with a varying velocity, depending on > the time at which it was emitted, it is scarcely to be expected that in > all cases we are at just such a distance from the binary system that the > light reaching us as the lines coalesce would have originated from both > stars when their radial (with respect to earth) component of velocity was > zero. On the other hand, this fact is explained if the light from both > stars has a constant velocity, regardless of the velocity of the stars > with respect to the earth at the time of emission. This objection to the > ballistic theory fails to take into account the velocity of the binary > system as a whole along the line of sight from the earth. We can only > deduce this from an observation of the spectrum lines, and this extra > degree of freedom which is not likely to be subject to an independent > check for a very long time, if ever enables us to satisfy the above > condition that has been denied. Any asymmetry of the motions of the > spectrum lines from the two stars which may be observed can be attributed > to a radial motion of the system as a whole; whether the right value of > the radial velocity is deduced will depend on whether the theory of light > used is the correct one, but the answer to the objection is that in > general the motions of the spectrum lines will not be symmetrical; it is > the resultant motion after deducting that due to radial motion of the > stars that is symmetrical, and it is so because the effect of radial > motion has been assumed to be such as to make it so." > > >> >>THAT is what De Sitter did, and he concluded that by modeling binary star >>systems as two stars orbiting each other (using Newtonian mechanics), the >>computations using emission theory do not agree with the observations, but >>the computations using SR do. (He had to do this statistically, not >>knowing the orientations or dimensions of the various binary stars' orbits >>wrt their individual lines of sight, but that does not change the >>conclusions.) >> >> >>> The problem is that with SR the prediction of X is straight forward >> >>You don't seem to understand that you got it backwards: science is about >>TESTING MODELS, not "predicting what is out there". It is straightforward >>to model a pair of mutually-orbiting stars and compute how the light >>should look, using Newtonian mechanics and either SR or emission theory. > > Absolutely but there would be no point as you cannot construct such a > system and test it. Neither can you choose an actual binary system, go and > have a look to see what is *actually* there and then see whether what is > seen from earth is as predicted by one theory or another. > That is why what is done IS backwards. You have to start with the results > from an undefined model and work backwards. You have no way of knowing > what you are actually looking at. > >> But this straightforward computation using emission theory does not agree >> with what is actually observed. > > ??? No such system has been constructed. > >>The fact that such computations using SR do agree with the observations >>supports the notion that the visible objects we call "binary stars" >>actually are two stars orbiting each other (as the name implies). Of >>course visibly resolving the two stars also does that, but cannot be done >>for many/most binaries, especially back in 1913. > > -- > John Kennaugh ; evidence falsifying relativity can't be true as it is > contrary > to relativity :o) > There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. A) Star B) light (observed at c+v at Earth) C) Earth D) comoving coinert coRoberts " In SR of course, the closing speed of light (B) and star (A) is c+v or c-v (depending on direction of star's motion). That is NOT the speed of light (B) leaving the star measured in the star's (A) instantaneously comoving inertial frame (D), which is of course c." -- cobabbling coidiot Coroberts (but it IS the measured speed of light by the Earthbound observer -- "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t" Coalbert Coeinstein.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 29 Jan 2010 16:39 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:50:08 +0000, John Kennaugh <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >Tom Roberts wrote: >>John Kennaugh wrote: >>> DeSitter told everyone what they wanted to hear [...] >> >>Your OUTRAGEOUS bias so pervades your thought processes that you are >>unable to read anything about physics. Either grow up and learn how to >>read, or get a hobby more suited to your abilities. > >Your abuse is wasted. I will stick with argument. > >> >>And, of course, in 1913 not everyone "wanted to hear" that SR was >>correct. You REALLY don't understand either physics or history. > >I would be VERY interested in any reference you have of Ritz's theory >having been championed after his death in 1909. He was written out of >history as far as I can tell. Maxwell dominated thinking. Einstein >rescued Maxwell, Ritz suggested that physics had it wrong. An >unforgivable sin even in recent times (ref Dingle). > > "Ritz's work has been suppressed not by any act of censorship, or > proscription, but by the far more effective method of entirely ignoring > it" Waldron - the electrodynamics of Ritz - SST Vol2 No3. > >>> The correct way of looking at it is: >>> 1/ We have no way of knowing what is actually there. >>> 2/ If we apply SR we will conclude that what is actually there is X >>> 3/ If we apply emission theory we will conclude that what is actually >>>there is Y. >> >>That is NOT the correct way of looking at it. >> >>The CORRECT way, the SCIENTIFIC way, is to model the distant binary >>star system, > >And exactly HOW do you do that without *assuming* a theory to translate >the data into a model. Your model is then consistent with the theory you >used to construct it with. > >>compute how the light emitted from such a system would appear to an >>observer on earth, and then compare the computation with the >>observations. Of course to test theories one must do this for each >>theory of interest (here SR and emission theory). > >DeSitter was incapable of even attempting to construct a model assuming >emission theory to be correct because it can only be done using an >iterative process and a computer. DeSitter was selective in which data >he used and he assumed the model produced by assuming SR, was a true >representation of what was there and simply showed that that model is >inconsistent with emission theory. John, De Sitter's model and analysis was perfectly sound except for one major omission....and you will never shoot him down unless you try to understand what that is. De Sitter's velocity values were based on observed doppler shifts. These in turn were assumed to be conventional shifts based on classical theory and a constant light speed. If those velocity values were correct, then emission theory would certainly predict multiple imagery, as De Sitter rightly claimed...and as far as we know, no cases of multiple imagery have been recorded anywhere in the universe. (That doesn't mean they don't exist.) Attempts to refute De Sitter's claims with 'extinction effects' also fall short because the concept is not fully compatible with the image clarity of very distant objects, although extinction and light speed 'unification' are almost certainly involved. What nobody understands is that in emission theory, a different type of wavelength shift occurs. It is due to source ACCELERATION. I have named it ADoppler, to distiguish it from conventional VDoppler. De Sitter's model did not include ADoppler and was therefore totally inadequate. Roberts wrongly assumes his ETh model was correct. For low eccentric orbits, ADoppler is about 90 deg out of phase wrt VDoppler and its observed curve shape should approximately mimic the source star's brightness curve, as we see here: http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html Observed wavelength shifts are actually a combination of A and V doppler, with ADoppler likely to dominate in the case of binary stars. As a consequence of ignoring ADoppler, De Sitter's analysis is completely wrong since the true source velocities wrt Earth were considerably lower than his calculated values. Most star velocity calculation in recent times are also likely to be completely wrong, as are the theories that are based on them. If you want to know more about ADoppler, I will tell you all about it. You wont find reference to it in any books because I only recently discovered it. >> >>You don't seem to understand that you got it backwards: science is >>about TESTING MODELS, not "predicting what is out there". It is >>straightforward to model a pair of mutually-orbiting stars and compute >>how the light should look, using Newtonian mechanics and either SR or >>emission theory. > >Absolutely but there would be no point as you cannot construct such a >system and test it. Neither can you choose an actual binary system, go >and have a look to see what is *actually* there and then see whether >what is seen from earth is as predicted by one theory or another. >That is why what is done IS backwards. You have to start with the >results from an undefined model and work backwards. You have no way of >knowing what you are actually looking at. > >> But this straightforward computation using emission theory does not >>agree with what is actually observed. > >??? No such system has been constructed. > >>The fact that such computations using SR do agree with the observations >>supports the notion that the visible objects we call "binary stars" >>actually are two stars orbiting each other (as the name implies). Of >>course visibly resolving the two stars also does that, but cannot be >>done for many/most binaries, especially back in 1913. Henry Wilson... ........provider of free physics lessons
From: eric gisse on 30 Jan 2010 02:03
John Park wrote: [...] > ??? I thought "spectroscopic binary" meant exactly that the > doppler-shifted lines of the two components were resolved even though > there was only a single telescopic image. You are exactly right and I'm in the wrong here. Great. I just made myself look like a retard. Today has been an /excellent day/. [...] |