GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Eric Gisse on 30 Aug 2007 21:56 On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:06:13 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >Eric Gisse wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:15:24 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >>>Eric Gisse wrote: >>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun >>>>>up by accreting matter from a companion. >>>> >>>>That isn't true. All you'd get is a type 1a supernova if accretion >>>>were going on. >>> >>>I think you are thinking of white dwarfs (or is it dwarves?). >>>Neutron stars are the remnants of supernovas, and they aren't >>>going to supernova again. >> >> A type 1a supernova is a neutron star that has accreted enough >> hydrogen to initiate fusion on the outer surface. Basically, its a >> huge bomb. > >You have a source for that? Because everything I have read says >neutron stars are the end result of a supernova, not the >precursor to one, and that they are cold; their surfaces are cold >enough to be solid. Fusion on the surface is highly improbable. Yes, neutron stars are the end of a star but that doesn't mean they are dead objects. They are most definitely not cold [though their temperature has little bearing on a 1a supernova to my knowledge] unless your basis of comparison is the Fermi temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova The Wiki article is pretty good. But the basic idea is that a neutron star is in close orbit with a star that still has a Hydrogen envelope somewhere. Star gets a shade close [within the Roche lobe] and starts getting torn apart. The neutron star starts accreting mass off the parent star, and eventually goes boom due to a runaway fusion reaction on the surface.
From: T.M. Sommers on 30 Aug 2007 23:27 Eric Gisse wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:06:13 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >>Eric Gisse wrote: >>>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:15:24 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >>>>Eric Gisse wrote: >>>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>>><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun >>>>>>up by accreting matter from a companion. >>>>> >>>>>That isn't true. All you'd get is a type 1a supernova if accretion >>>>>were going on. >>>> >>>>I think you are thinking of white dwarfs (or is it dwarves?). >>>>Neutron stars are the remnants of supernovas, and they aren't >>>>going to supernova again. >>> >>>A type 1a supernova is a neutron star that has accreted enough >>>hydrogen to initiate fusion on the outer surface. Basically, its a >>>huge bomb. >> >>You have a source for that? Because everything I have read says >>neutron stars are the end result of a supernova, not the >>precursor to one, and that they are cold; their surfaces are cold >>enough to be solid. Fusion on the surface is highly improbable. > > Yes, neutron stars are the end of a star but that doesn't mean they > are dead objects. They are most definitely not cold Yes, I got that wrong. That'll learn me to write before checking my facts. > [though their > temperature has little bearing on a 1a supernova to my knowledge] > unless your basis of comparison is the Fermi temperature. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova > > The Wiki article is pretty good. But the basic idea is that a neutron > star is in close orbit with a star that still has a Hydrogen envelope > somewhere. Star gets a shade close [within the Roche lobe] and starts > getting torn apart. The neutron star starts accreting mass off the > parent star, and eventually goes boom due to a runaway fusion reaction > on the surface. Nowhere does that article say that neutron stars go boom. You are confusing neutron stars and white dwarfs. They are different beasties entirely. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: Eric Gisse on 30 Aug 2007 23:41 On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:27:59 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >Eric Gisse wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:06:13 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >>>Eric Gisse wrote: >>>>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:15:24 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >>>>>Eric Gisse wrote: >>>>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>>>><george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Certainly for millisecond pulsars, they get spun >>>>>>>up by accreting matter from a companion. >>>>>> >>>>>>That isn't true. All you'd get is a type 1a supernova if accretion >>>>>>were going on. >>>>> >>>>>I think you are thinking of white dwarfs (or is it dwarves?). >>>>>Neutron stars are the remnants of supernovas, and they aren't >>>>>going to supernova again. >>>> >>>>A type 1a supernova is a neutron star that has accreted enough >>>>hydrogen to initiate fusion on the outer surface. Basically, its a >>>>huge bomb. >>> >>>You have a source for that? Because everything I have read says >>>neutron stars are the end result of a supernova, not the >>>precursor to one, and that they are cold; their surfaces are cold >>>enough to be solid. Fusion on the surface is highly improbable. >> >> Yes, neutron stars are the end of a star but that doesn't mean they >> are dead objects. They are most definitely not cold > >Yes, I got that wrong. That'll learn me to write before checking >my facts. > >> [though their >> temperature has little bearing on a 1a supernova to my knowledge] >> unless your basis of comparison is the Fermi temperature. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova >> >> The Wiki article is pretty good. But the basic idea is that a neutron >> star is in close orbit with a star that still has a Hydrogen envelope >> somewhere. Star gets a shade close [within the Roche lobe] and starts >> getting torn apart. The neutron star starts accreting mass off the >> parent star, and eventually goes boom due to a runaway fusion reaction >> on the surface. > >Nowhere does that article say that neutron stars go boom. You >are confusing neutron stars and white dwarfs. They are different >beasties entirely. EEK All this time I thought the compact object in the type 1a supernova was a neutron star.
From: George Dishman on 31 Aug 2007 04:37 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:2nied3p1ash6ohj5uesptae3nehoef73mp(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:09:45 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:3o1cd3dqv4ruios7s0n9n190gl88bou3cm(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:12:26 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>>news:ncmbd3pimq5gah564v6mcm1a8s7m6jco52(a)4ax.com... .... >>>>> It all fits in with BaTh. >>>> >>>>Not really, they all show VDoppler only which is >>>>conventional theory. BaTh requires ADoppler and >>>>you are scrabbling for excuses to explain why it >>>>doesn't appear when you should be able to use them >>>>to prove it does exist. >>> >>> Remember the 'spheres' George... >> >>Yes Henry, a perfect example. You don't offer an >>equation that solves the problem, you just invent >>a hand-waving term to try to cover up the fact >>that your theory fails. Excuse or not, the theory >>still gives the wrong prediction. > > Equations must always be preceded by concepts George. Not in science, only if you are a philosopher. In science equations start as empirical from observation and the concept is developed to fit the equations. In Ritz's case he started with the MMx and suggested an equation to fit which was subsequently falsified by Sagnac. There is no concept involved since you cannot explain his model in wave terms - there is no way to convert his postulate into a second order differential - and he wasn't suggesting a particulate model AFAIK. George
From: George Dishman on 31 Aug 2007 05:14
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:iqeed3dcbr4in2u4rgaomtd1mfegovg7o2(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:30:07 -0700, George Dishman > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 05:16:19 -0700, George Dishman >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >>> >Thank again, you are finally getting to the point >>> >where you will admit my equation is correct. >>> >>> It might be correct ... >> >>It is right. >> >>> but it's just kid's stuff.... >> >>Sure, the application of balistic theory to binary systems >>is just kid's stuff. > > Then so is your SR Sagnac analysis... Sure, it is a few lines of algebra that you yourself confirmed last year. >>> Now try applying it generally George. Don't forget to include yaw angle, >>> eccentricity and observer distance >> >>You forget I already did that part: >> >> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Ritz_Binary.html >> >>It took a couple of hours mainly getting the sizes >>of the controls right, the maths of the orbit is one >>line. > > It looks impressive but I can't get it to run. > I can change the orbit parameters, but nothing happens on 'play'. > It doesn't say what anything is. Remember I only wrote it as a suggestion for a GUI for you. As a trivial part of that it includes the 3D view of the orbit. I won't add the plots to it unless I have time to burn since it is only valid for binaries and we have dealt with them, it isn't applicable to Cepheids. >>> as well as source velocity versus time. >>> >>> I wish you well. >> >>All the equatons need are on this page: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion >> >>apart from the acceleration which is GM/r^2 of course. >> >>I didn't bother typing them in because th conversation >>went past the point where they would have been >>useful. > > I originally considered using Kepler's equations but devised a much easier > and > more efficient way to do it. Well we have finished discussing binary pulsars and contact binaries anyway so I won't do any more to the program. Cepheid need a completely different approach. .... >>Bottom line - until you provide an equation containing >>K, there is no K in your theory. > > George, I have already calculated one value of K for you. It was ~5E-5 Whoopee a number. What the **** use is that when you don't have an equation to put it into? >>> >It is a tool which you then apply to the particular >>> >circumstances. That means you work out your >>> >own equations to define the motion of the source >>> >and then apply mine to find the effect on the >>> >surface brightness due to ballistic theory. You >>> >also need to use other laws to find the effect of >>> >area changes and temperature as we said before >>> >to find the total luminosity change. >>> >>> Give up George. This is way beyond you. >> >>Sorry Henry, my equation is complete and correct, >>your arrogance is just sour grapes because you >>couldn't work it out and have spent years trying to >>write a simulation to do it for you. > > George, my simulations are accurate. They also match most star curves. For binaries, your program does most of what is needed other than showing the correct predicted velocity curve, for Cepheids it is useless because you cannot enter the temperature effects and it needs another curve showing the radius. >>> My advice is that you should try to master my very comprehensive program >>> and >>> make suggestions with regard to how it might be refined. >> >>I have repeatedly - add a curve showing the predicted >>observed velocity instead of your bodge of using the >>true velocity with arrival time distortion, it is only half >>the story and doesn't correspond to either the true >>or observed values. Add in a true distance curve which >>will be equivalent to the radius curve for a Cepheid, >>and most importantly add scales to all your graphs. > > Hahaha. > George the small radius change (if any) makes absolutely no difference to > the > observer distance. No but if you square it, you get the area change which is dominant for K band (5 times more than all other effects together) and comparing the phase of the radius with the observed curve is the only way to determine whether you are seeing VDoppler or ADoppler. >>> BaTh has never been proven wrong. >> >>Sagnac, Shapiro, Ives and Stillwell, all prove it >>wrong. > > well how come your Sagnac analysis relies on the same principle I use to > produce brightness curves? Because my analysis used ballistic theory to demonstrate that there would be no fringe shift. >>> All evidence points to it being correct... >> >>There isn't a single experiment where ballistic >>theory is right other than those where it gives >>the same prediction as SR, e.g. the MMx. > > George, why do you think TWLS is dead constant? Don't try to change the subject, can you name a single experiment where applying Ritz's equation gives an answer that differs from SR and matches the exerimental result? >>> at least in 'empty' space. >>> My program uses the same principle that SR relies on to explain Sagnac. >> >>Liar. > > Don't deny it George. You finallly admitted that the 'closing velocities' > of > the rays are c+/-v wrt the source in sagnac. That's exactly what I use.... > CLOSING VELOCITIES OF C+V. Liar, you say the light moves at c wrt the source and you use the Galilean Transforms so the CLOSING VELOCITY is c in all frames in ballistic theory, you do NOT use closing velocities of c+/-v. >>> >The suggestion >>> >that Cepheids were unvarying stars in Keplerian orbits >>> >is simple to simulate but since they are actually what >>> >you describe as "huff-puff" stars, there would be a lot >>> >of work to do to take account of temperature variation >>> >in particular. All it would do is show that the conventional >>> >theory accounts for all the observed change so the whole >>> >excercise would be pointless. >>> >>> It turns out that the temperaturre curve should be approximately in >>> phase with >>> the BaTh brightness curve....so it shouldn't make much difference even >>> if it >>> does occur. >> >>Planck's Law says it is the major cause of the luminosity >>variation V band, close to a factor of 2 for L Car. > > ..and ADoppler could easily account for that. Come on Henry, don't be stupid. The temperature accounts for most of that from Planck's Law so you should have said "..and ADoppler could easily account for the rest." Until you remove the influence of temperature, you results are grossly wrong. >>> I didn't need the 'shapiro delay' to tell me that George. >>> I have a perfectly sound explanation as to why some stars and pulsars >>> exhibit >>> only VDoppler. >> >>All stars Henry, all. > > Hahaha! > You will go down fighting till the end .... Just stating a fact Henry, every system we have examined so far has turned out to have no detectable ADoppler. > What about all those supposed eclipsing stars that aren't eclipsing at > all? When I pointed out that you had misread the period on the graphs for conatct binaries, you eventually agreed they were actually eclipses. > Many are just orbiting stars with eccentricity around 0.5 and their > perihelions > closest to Earth. You backed down on that claim, had you forgotten? >>> >> >For a >>> >> >Cepheid, you need either the acoustic model >>> >> >for true velocity (or calculate back by fitting >>> >> >an observed velocity) and use the derivative of >>> >> >the true velocity for the acceleration. For a >>> >> >laser bounched off a mirror glued to a >>> >> >loudspeaker, you need to differentiate the audio >>> >> >waveform to get the cone position, speed and >>> >> >acceleration. My equation is entirely general. >>> >> >>> >> ..and entirely inadequate.... >>> > >>> >No Henry, it is entirely adequate. It is a tool and >>> >it is _your_ job to wield it, not mine. >>> >>> George, my pogram includes two independent methods of producing star >>> curves. >>> One is based on YOUR equation. It produces the same curves as my other >>> method. >> >>Thanks for confirming my equation. > > It doesn't use your equation directly. Rather it uses the velocity > difference > at two finitely separated points and repeats the calculation around the > whole > orbit.. The confirmation is because your method gives the same result as mine. >>> So instead of arguing you should be trying to apply it generally...just >>> as I >>> have done. >> >>You haven't, your predicted curve for observed velocity >>(i.e. spectral shift) doesn't use it and is wrong. > > George, the predicted OBSERVED velocity curve in similar to the observed > LUM > curve....but maybe slightly out of phase and much smaller in proportional > change. So you imagine, but your program doesn't calculate it whatever you anticipate. >>> >The published temperature curves are as OBSERVED, >>> >and ballistic theory doesn't change the conversion >>> >from multi-band luminosity to temperature because >>> >both VDoppler and ADopler apply equally to the bands >>> >so the temperature values remain valid. >>> >>> ADoppler has the potential to shift a whole Planck curve sideways and >>> give an >>> entirely whole impression of the true temperatue of the star. >> >>Yep, but since we know the shift is only 0.01% and >>the filters are orders of magnitude wider, it affects >>the temperature determination by at most a few >>degrees in ~6000K, it is negligible in practice so >>the temperature values remain valid. > > If those figures are true then the temperature cannot be determine > accurately > at all. Of course it can, the shift of 0.01% is one part in 1600 for the K band so at most it produces a few degrees error and since the levels at the ends of the band are similar in practice far less. >>> >No you haven't you waved your hands and got it wrong. >>> >Radiation pressure doesn't affect light and for a >>> >spacecraft on the far side of Jupiter, it would act in the >>> >wrong direction anyway, the change would make the >>> >arrival time even earlier than that due to the gravitational >>> >effect. It doesn't solve the problem, it makes it worse. >>> >>> Wrong George. It would make the average speed less than c. >> >>Think about it instead of giving a knee-jerk Henry: >> >> ===== >> Sun Jupiter craft >> ===== >> X >> Y >> >> Earth >> >>The signal from the craft passes close to the surface of >>Jupiter and is in the Sun's shadow from emission until >>point X. Without the planet is would be slowed by the >>solar radistion pressure, because it is in the shadow it >>isn't slowed so arrives earlier. From X to Y the effect of >>the sunlight is unchanged but light reflected from Jupiter >>would push the signal towards Earth so again it arrives >>earlier than it would otherwise do due to the presence >>of the planet. > > That's pathetic George. I see you now realise it is correct, your suggestion doesn't work. >>> A radar pulse fired at Venus when it between Earth and Sun takes lomger >>> than >>> one when the planet is in the opposite direction. >>> >>> ...and I'm not just talking about 'radiation pressure'. I'm sugesting >>> forces >>> unknown....maybe associated with the gravity field. >> >>Gravity is what caused your problem in the first place, >>it accelerates the light between the craft and point X >>and slows it between X and Y so the speed ends up >>the same but the signal has moved ahead and arrives >>early. > > That would be the case..but there is another stronger 'force' operating in > the > opposite direction. Ah "forces unknown". Henry, in science all we do is apply the equations. If you do that in the above scenario the signal arrives earlier because of gravity and earlier because of the shadowing when on the far side of the planet and ealier because of the reflected light on this side. Three earlies don't make a late. >>Anyway there is no point in wittering about "forces >>unknown", we are talking science so we are talking >>about nothing more than what ballistic theory predicts. >>It says the light will arrive early when in fact it arrives >>late and the suggestion of radiation pressure makes >>the problem worse, it isn't a solution. > > George, radar to Venus takes longer when he planet is aligned between us > and > the sun than when it is in the opposite side. That is perfectly consistent > with > my theory of 'solar wind'...which includes factors as yet unknown. Forget the wind nonsense, it only makes matters worse. You are saying nothing more than the Shapiro delay should be early as a result of ballistic but it is late because of "factors as yet unknown". That means ballistic theory is wrong and you hope you can cover it up with something else. >>> >> BaTh also matches the curves of at least ONE pulsar. >>> > >>> >It matched all the ones we checked that had detectable >>> >Shapiro delays or an eclipse as long as you have the >>> >speed equalisation so short that there is no ADoppler. >>> >(Without an orbital phase reference you cannot reach an >>> >unambiguous conclusion.) >>> >>> That's not true. The curve of PSR1913+16 is mainly an ADoppler one. >> >>Not true, the orbit is far from edge on so there is no >>detectable Shapiro delay or eclipse AFAIK which means >>you cannot distinguish VDoppler from ADoppler. If you >>know of an orbita reference, we can revisit it of course, >>but from memory I thought it was you who told me it >>was VDoppler. I could be wrong on that though. it's a >>few months since we discussed it briefly. > > It doesnt have to be edge on. > ALL possible orbits can be rotated around an axis perpendicular to the LOS > to > make them edge on...in which case ALL the velocites and accelerations > around > the whole orbit are multiplied by the same factor sec(pitch) The point is that we don't detect the Shapiro delay for whatever reason so you have no orbital phase reference with which to distinguish VDoppler from ADoppler so you cannot prove anything either way using that system. George |