OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jun 2005 08:55 On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:37:29 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:1moeb1ds0oodcit7ijs0tbe4me4rhq8m4t(a)4ax.com: > >>>As I understand it, photons don't really 'bounce' from a surface. >>> >>>They are absorbed and re-emitted. That would result in the emitted >>>photons losing velocity (but perhaps gaining energy) when they 'bounce' >>>from a moving surface. >> >> Strange how they are re-emitted at exactly the incident angle, don't you >> think.... > >It would be much stranger if they weren't. It would be very strange, just like pefectly elastic balls bouncing off walls. > >.... >>>If sub/super luminal photons can be created in the atmosphere of a star >>>and travel through the vacuum of space, they can be created in a >>>particle accelerator and travel through the vacuum of the lab or by >>>bouncing light off of a moving front surface mirror and travel through >>>the air in the lab. >>> >>>If the air in the lab is too dense to allow the photons to move at >>>super/sub luminal velocity, the atmosphere of the star must be much more >>>likely to kill such photons. >> >> But the star atmosphere itself is moving at v wrt Earth. > >Yes, but next paragraph kills that objection. > >>>Any Henri Cepheid stars are going to leave behind them a dense ring of >>>stellar gasses and THOSE gasses are going to cause a rapid extinction of >>>any photons that pass through them. Those gasses are NOT going to be >>>moving at the radial velocity of the visible star. Your colleague Craig Markwardt recently informed me that there is nothing in the Earth's atmosphere that could or would unify the speed of light. >> >> Yes they are...most of it anyway. > >"Most of it" is going to average to 'zero velocity' wrt the barycenter >involved because the stellar winds are going in all directions and will >average out to zero. all speculation...but anyway, the overall effect will be to increase the critical distance, just as thermal velocity of sources does. > >>>Like our solar wind, they are >>>going to be going all directions from the visible star at speeds >>>exceeding the stellar escape velocity. Photons going through the stellar >>>winds are going to be speeded up and slowed down. This would produce >>>both faster and slower than BaT predicted photons. >> >> This is unknown territory. >> We can only speculate about the way photons change speed in turbulent >> gases like these. It is an important topic..but first things first... > >These are first things. If they prevent BaT from ever being observed then >there might as well not be a BaT [if there is a BaT it doesn't matter]. they shouldn't do that. There will always be a kind of average speed of all the light leaving a star in the observer's direction. > >>>>>> If you know what actually PHYSICALLY happens when a laser beam >>>>>> bounces off a moving atom, then your experiment might mean >>>>>> something. >>>>> >>>>>Scattering from particles is pretty well documented and understood. >>>> >>>> using classical wave theory? >>> >>>What does THAT question have to do with anything? >> >> I think all interference, scattering, refraction etc effects are still >> explained only by classssical wave theory. > >In which case BaT should be easy to demonstrate in the lab. Classical wave >theory doesn't even give you any excuse for it not working. It cannot be easily demonstrated. We have discussed that. >.... >>>> The MMX failed because light speed is souce dependent. >>> >>>Try rowing up river and back to starting point >>>Row down river and back to starting point. >> >>>do this with a stationary starting point. >> >>>do this with a moving starting point. >> >> The usual question is what happens when you row ACROSS the river and >> back again. > >MMX has one beam going up-river/down-river and the other beam going across >the river. that's right. ..and the time taken to go across and back is independent of the river speed IF THE BOAT IS ALWAYS ALIGNED PERPENDICULAR TO THE SHORE.. M M and Einstein argued wrongly by assuming that light consists of 'little spheres'. It doesn't. Photons have a 'long axis' and its direction doesn't change when an observer moves past. the time taken to go up and down the river varuies with river flow by the linear doppler expression. In other words the factor 'gamma' should have 'v', not v^2. . > >>>MMX falsified the theory that there is an absolute aether. >>> >>>MMX did NOT fail. It failed to show what they thought it would show, but >>>it did not fail. >> >> No. It failed, and it FAILED. > >Science is built upon those kinds of failures. > >>>>>>>A property of space or a property of light. I vote for a property of >>>>>>>light. >>>>>> >>>>>> Light, when emitted, doesn't know its ultimate target. >>>>>> >>>>>> So how could it adjust its speed to c wrt little planet Earth. >>>>> >>>>>Light doesn't NEED adjust its speed, it obeys the speed limit. >>>> >>>> relative to what? >>> >>>everything it interacts with. >> >> That's an SR postulate, not a fact. > >The postulate was based on data available pre postulate. >Tests run post postulate have failed to invalidate the postulate. >That is a fact. > >>>> speed must be specified relative to something. >>> >>>>>Its speed is a property of the photon- >>>>>It is also a property of the interaction- >>>>> between the emitter and the photon- >>>>> between the photon and the absorber. >>> >>>Speed is c relative to the emitter. >>>Speed is c relative to the absorber. >> >> That's an SR postulate, not a fact. > >The postulate was based on data available pre postulate. >Tests run post postulate have failed to invalidate the postulate. >That is a fact. > >..... >>>>>Its speed is a property of the photon- >>>>>It is also a property of the interaction- >>>>> between the emitter and the photon- >>>>> between the photon and the absorber. >>> >>>The absorber does not need to exists when the emission takes place. >> >> How can it be moving at c wrt an absorber that doesn't even exist? >> That's plain stupid. > >Anytime anyone anywhere measures its velocity they will measure c, >according to SR. > >>>>>I didn't say absolutely synchd. >>>> >>>> SR says separated clocks cannot be synched except with the E-synch >>>> method. >>> >>>There is a reason for that. >>> >>>> However, there is a simple way to absolutely synch clocks. >>>> >>>> Cm->v >>>> _______C1____C2____C3____C4____C5 >>>> >>>> Move clocks Cm at constant speed along a line of equally separated >>>> clocks. As it passes each one, adjust its time to that of the moving >>>> clock. >>> >>>And how does that contradicts Einstein? >>> >>>There is a minor problem. It is that the moving clock is RUNNING at a >>>different rate than the set of fixed clocks. >> >> It isn't. It's rate doesn't change with movement. > >But is does as seen from another FoR, according to SR. > >So, it is running at a different rate from the series of fixed clocks as >seen from THEIR FoR. > >>>>>> very. >>>>>> They have to be presynched, then set in motion. >>>>>> We know that giving a clock a bit of a push doesn't change its >>>>>> 'absolute' rate, don't we? I have proved that many times. >>>>> >>>>>Henri, you can't PROVE anything in science. You can predict, you can >>>>>collect data that supports, you can invalidate. >>>> >>>> A rod cannot physically shrink and lengthen simultaneously. I take >>>> that as an absoute truism. >>> >>>Depends on your favorite theory. Yours is BaT which is a subset of LET. >>>LET believers think the rod physically shrinks. >> >> Come on Bob, don't be ridiculous. > >BaT "believes in a Local Ether" that is around the emitter. Every photon >emitted moves at c wrt that local ether. > >That conclusion is as justified as your continual insistance that SR is an >LET. If my statement is ridiculous, so are yours. > >>>>>You can't prove. You keep thinking you have proven things. That shows >>>>>you have faith in your religion. It shows you are NOT practicing >>>>>science. >>>> >>>> Can a rod physically lengthen and shrink simultaneously, as SR claims? >>>> One would certainly need a lot of faith to maintain such a belief. >>> >>>SR doesn't claim it shrinks, LET makes that claim. >>>You like LET. >> >> I don't like aether theories at all....but they might work locally. >> For instance, does a large lump of glass constitute a 'local reference >> frame' for all light inside it? >> >> Probably yes. > >Local Frame of Reference .NotEqual. Local Ether Theory. > >>>SR says it appears to shrink. >> >> ....but SR also says it appears to lengthen in the frames of all >> observers who were initially moving in the direction of the push. >> >> ...so it doesn't really do either, does it.. > >It doesn't change, if you look at it from its FoR. > >If you look from another FoR, it appears to change. It is not an optical >illusion. Your test equipment confirms your measurments. > >>>>>> Just ask yourself the question again. >>>>>> If a clock is given a push, does it physically speed up or slow >>>>>> down. >>>>> >>>>>Henri, if you are honest with yourself you will say that you have >>>>>absolutely no idea what will happen because you have not personally >>>>>performed the experiment. [since you don't like the data that others >>>>>have gathered] >>>> >>>> See. You cannot answer. >>> >>>I answered several times. >> >> You gave the wrong answer. > >Just because you don't like my answers does not mean I have not answered. > >.... >>>> Atomic clocks speed up when in free fall because they are manmade and >>>> not perfect. >>> >>>Not sufficent explanation. The change in speed is not due to an >>>imperfection. Imperfections can be compensated for. >>> >>>How do you compensate for the fact that atomic clocks based on different >>>oscillator frequencies show the SAME shift in speed? >> >> That is a logical consequence of release from internal gravitational >> stresses. > >It is entirely illogical. You can explain identical clocks acting the same >way, but you can not explain different types of clocks acting the same way >unless you are acting on faith. > >basic physics, material science, different materials react to stress >differently. Strain is distributed differently. When the stress is >removed, the strain will cause different kinds of changes in dimensions. >Clocks based on different priciples of operation would be effected >differently. > >For example: >Temperature effects the size of materials. Mechanical clocks can either >gain time, or lose time as their temperature goes up. Not all clocks gain >the same amount of time when the temperature is changed. > >The same thing would be true for gravity IF stresses due to gravity were >the cause of the change in clock speed. It is NOT. > >> How do YOU account for the fact that similar clocks in any free fall >> show the same degree of rate change? > >Not only similar clocks, ANY clocks. > >Clocks based on entirely different principles ALL show the same degree of >rate change. The same change as predicted by SR/GR. > >This is NOT due to physical changes in the clocks mechanism. This is due >to different rates of time as seen from outside the FoR of the clock. If >you were in orbit WITH the clock, it would seem to be running correctly >[and it is]. > >>>> Do you ever see figures for clocks in other orbits? >>>> No of course you don't!.... Why??? Because they don't suport GR of >>>> course. The establishment doesn't want to know about that. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> LET equations are identical to those of SR. If anything supports SR >>>>>> it also support LET. >>>>> >>>>>LET is untestable and has a major problem. >>>>>How 'local' is the 'local' in an LET? >>>>>How do you explain the 'local aether' moving along with one set of >>>>>moving objects [an observer, a light source, test equipment] that >>>>>passes very close to another inertial set moving in a different >>>>>direction? >>>>> >>>>>Imagine 4 sets of train tracks >>>>> >>>>>1 [observer a & test equipment a] ===> >>>>>2 [observer b & test equipment b] <=== >>>>>3 [source a] ===> >>>>>4 [source b] <=== >>>>> >>>>>1 & 3 move at same velocity >>>>>2 & 4 move at same velocity >>>>> >>>>>How can the aeither from track 1 carry over to track 3 and the aether >>>>>from track 2 carry to track 4 without mixing aethers? >>>>> >>>>>It is easy for Einsteinians to consider 1&3 part of the same inertial >>>>>frame and to consider 2&4 part of another inertial frame. >>>>> >>>>>But LET kind of falls into pieces in such a case. >>>> >>>> No it doesn't. It merely says both light rays travel at the one speed >>>> wrt the absolute aether frame and the measuring rods and clocks of the >>>> moving observers change so that the speed of the light is always >>>> measured as being c. >>> >>>Absolute aether has been invalidated by MMX and hundreds of other >>>experiments. You can have an LET [if you can explane how it can span >>>discontinuous FoRs], but not an absolute aether. >> >> I don't want one. I don't believe in an absolute aether. I don't accept >> LET although I believe its principles MIGHT apply to local situations. > >How can you apply an LET to discontinuous FoRs? > > >>>> As far as I can see, all so-called 'evidence' for SR seems to support >>>> the 'local aether' principle. >>> >>>SR does away with the need for a local aether. It doesn't make it >>>impossible for one to exist. >>> >>>Why carry a crutch you don't need? >> >> SR DOES need the aether. > >only HWSR needs an aether. [Henri Wilson SR]. > >Einsteins SR has no such need. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jerry on 23 Jun 2005 08:59 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 20 Jun 2005 18:56:36 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> How do YOU account for the fact that similar clocks in any > >> free fall show the > >> same degree of rate change? > > > >They do not. Compare GPS with GLONASS. Compare with cesium > >atoms in free fall in a fountain clock. > > They may be in the same free fall ..but are they cutting the > Earth's fields at the same speed? Bogus argument. GPS satellites orbit in six orbital planes, and cross Earth's magnetic fields at different angles. YET ALL ARE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER. Hence, cesium beam clocks and rubidium glass cell oscillators are insensitive to variations in the rate at which they are "cutting the Earth's fields." Jerry
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 23 Jun 2005 10:00 In sci.physics, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote on 23 Jun 2005 05:44:52 -0700 <1119530692.891984.97450(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: > Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 20 Jun 2005 20:28:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >bz wrote: >> >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> >> news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: >> >> > It isn't hard to concoct a theory when you know the answer you want. >> >> >> >> All theories start out trying to explain observed phenomia >> >> (the answer you want to get). Your BaT as well as any others. >> >> >> >> Shapely in his 1914 paper "On the nature and cause of Cepheid >> >> variation." explores various double star hypotheses available >> >> at the time and explains why they must be rejected. One >> >> important point is that "various lines [in the spectrum] show >> >> large irregular shifts, which are not progressive with the >> >> phase of the star in its light-period." >> > >> >Full article available here: >> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92....1S&db_key=AST >> > >> >Henri, there is no excuse for you not to read this one! >> >> I did...and I'm not impressed. He was obviously a relativist >> who believed that all starlight travels at c to little planet Earth. >> The is nothing in ithe paper that suggests I am wrong. >> >> The fact that brightness variation occurs at a very constant rate, >> varying only slightly over many years, agrees with the BaT's >> time compression concept. > > Irregularities appear in EVERY HYPOTHETICAL ORBIT. Model that! Hypothetical orbits are useless except to instruct, and Henri is on record as suggesting every clock is damaged when boosted into orbit. (This presumably includes radioactive isotopes. How one can damage, say, cobalt 60 by boosting it with a relatively gentle (compared to the nuclear strong force) 10g rocket ride with lots of irrelevant vibration is not clear. Whether one has performed such an experiment is not clear to me, either.) As for BaT's "time compression" -- first I've heard of it; my usual postulate regarding BaT is a universal time co-ordinate system (suggested by Henri's comments that a clock can only have one measurement regardless of the velocity of an observer in motion relative to that clock). > >> I would say tat a cepheid is a largeish star around which >> a neutron star or other WCH is orbiting quite rapidly. >> Note: a neutron star would not create a noticeable eclipse. >> The pair are themselves in orbit around another large mass, >> a process that can make the period of the binary appear >> considerably shorter than it really is. > > Your curves appear similar in gross to Cepheid curves. They do > NOT resemble Cepheid curves in DETAIL. > > How do you explain the random 0.03 magnitude fluctuations in the > Polaris light curve? > > Your BaT theory requires epicycle upon epicycle... Henri is also on record as claiming BaT has never been disproven; this despite a rather large list of experiments that confirm SR and GR. > > Jerry > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Craig Markwardt on 23 Jun 2005 12:29 H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > On 21 Jun 2005 10:14:39 -0500, Craig Markwardt > <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > > > >> On 16 Jun 2005 09:18:27 -0500, Craig Markwardt > >> <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > >> >... snip ... > >> >> Emitted starlight does NOT travel at c wrt little planet Earth. How could it? > >> > > >> >It could if relativity were correct. In fact, it is well know that > >> >the light from stars travels at the speed c with respect to the earth, > >> >to within very narrow uncertainties. Earthbound interferometers such > >> >as the VLT Interferometer would not work properly if this were not > >> >true (and they do work properly). Radio VLBI observations of planets, > >> >spacecraft, stars and distant galaxies would not work properly if the > >> >speed of light were not c (and they do work properly). > >> > >> You are forgetting that light speed is unified by the Earth's atmosphere. > > > >Since the atmosphere has little to do with the fundamental principles > >of optical and radio interferometry, your comment is irrelevant. In > >fact, interferometry has been successfully performed *outside* the > >earth's atmosphere (Space VLBI, using the VSOP satellite), where your > >so-called "unification" is irrelevant. And finally, let's not forget > >that there are no known properties of the earth's atmosphere which > >could "unify" the speed of light. > > That's a strange thing to say. > What do you understand by the term 'extinction'? Extinction is a reduction in intensity. Classical interferometry will work with or without the presence of atmospheric (or other) extinction, so your diversion is irrelevant. I note that you ignored space VLBI, which a counterexample to your atmosphere-enables- interferometry claim. > >> >Thus the > >> >proper statement is, emitted starlight *does* appear to travel at c > >> >w.r.t. Earth. Your statement belies an obvious misunderstanding of > >> >Relativity. In it, light *must* travel at the same speed with respect > >> >to all frames. > >> > >> That is an unproven postulate, nothing more. > > > >Hardly. There have been many attempts to test the constancy of the > >speed of light. To cite a few, > > > > Schaefer, B. 1999, PRL, 82, 4964 (constancy of c with frequency) > > > > Will, C. 2001, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 4 (LLI tests in sec 2.1) > > http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-4 > > > > Wolf, P. & Gerrard, P. 1997, PRA, 56, 4405 (isotropicity of c) > > These are all either TWLS experiments or OWLS isotropy experiments with all > parts mutually at rest. > In that latter case the BaT expects OWLS to be isotropic. > > No experiment has directly measured the speed of light from a moving source. > Until recently, the means were not available to do so. Whether or not that is true, it is a diversion (partly of my own making). You originally, complained, "Emitted starlight does NOT travel at c wrt little planet Earth. How could it?" You appeal to intuition but not substance. Relativity answers the "how could it," question by assuming that it is fundamental property of spacetime. Whether or not that is a intuitively satisfactory answer to you is irrelevant. [ And, attempts have been made to test this postulate. ] > >> >> It is quite ludicrous to think that light from a star emitted at one point in > >> >> its orbit should travel at the same speed towards little planet Earth as light > >> >> emitted half an orbit later. > >> >> Emitted light has only one speed reference AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T LITTLE PLANET > >> >> EARTH. > >> > > >> >That is one (refuted) possibility. Another possibility is that light > >> >travels at the same speed with respect to all measurers. By your > >> >logic, it would be ludicrous for binary pulsars to emit radiation at > >> >the same speed w.r.t. earth at the different positions in its orbit, > >> >and yet... it does! To very high precision. Nature does not exist to > >> >satisfy your intuition or sense of ludocrity. > >> > >> Then why do most variable stars brightness curves exactly match The BaT > >> predictions based on their light traveling at c+v, at least for a significant > >> part of the way? > > > >While your "theory" might be sufficient to explain single-band optical > >light curves, your "theory" also makes other predictions that can be > >falsified. For example, it predicts that "variable" stars are really > >in binary orbits, and would have binary orbital Doppler shifts, which > >they do *not*. > > Many do...as predicted. Your claim is unsubstantiated. The burden is actually on you to show stars whose Doppler signatures *exactly* match your claimed orbital parameters, "as predicted," and that the results are reasonable. In fact, there are many solitary pulsating stars which do not have orbital Doppler signatures. > >In your theory, binary pulsars would emit radio pulses > >at different speeds w.r.t. earth at different parts of their orbits; > >this is clearly not the case (c.f. high precision pulsar timing, van > >Straten et al. Nature, 412, 158; http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108254). > >In your theory, ground- and space-based interferometry could not > >function, and yet it does. Thus, whether or not your theory "explains" > >variable star light curves, is quite irrelevant, since it is negated by > >other observations. > > Doppler shift according to the BaT is virtually the same as for NM and SR at > observed speeds. There is no reason it should affect interferometry. Light > speed doesn't change wavelength. It changes observed frequency at which > 'wavecrests' arrive at the receiver. Since interferometry is fundamentally about path/time length differences between two observers, your "Doppler shift" comment is irrelevant. Your claim (above) that interferometry works because of the earth's atmosphere is refuted because the earth's atmosphere is not required (space VLBI). Additionally, pulsar timing has nothing to do with Doppler shifts. In fact, since pulsars are highly stable rotators, it is possible to track the arrival times of individual pulses. If, as you claimed, the emission speed w.r.t. earth were to depend on the orbital phase, then the pulses emitted when the pulsar was approaching would overtake those on the receding side, but they do not. In fact, the orbits are precisely constrained at the few tens of nanosecond level (cf. van Straten above). The double binary pulsar system PSR J0737-3039 has *two* pulsars which both confirm this orbit solution; other binary pulsar systems have eclipses which confirm the orbit interpretation. Thus, binary pulsars are very sensitive test of the speed of light, and refute your ballastic "theory." > The radial velocity curve of cepheid RT Aur is precisely that of a star in > elliptical orbit, ecc=~0.25. ... Unlikely. RT Aur has an pulsation period of 3.7 days. If one were to interpret that as an orbital period, then by Kepler's law, the mass density in the orbit would need to be unphysically large. For example, for its estimated 5 M_sun mass, the orbit (0.08 AU) would be smaller than the size of the star itself (0.18 AU)! Furthermore, if we examine the well-known velocity curve, which has a semi-amplitude of +/- 16 km/s, one finds an approximate projected orbital radius of 0.005 AU, which is is improbably small (*), so small that again, the star would not fit inside! Therefore your claim is incredible. Even a simple check of your numbers with basic Kepler's laws would show that you don't know what you are talking about. > ... Yet you will insist that it is a radially > 'huff-puffing' star. > > >Even for the variable stars that you claim to be able to explain, you > >ignore the fact that the light curves change with wavelength > >(ex. Cepheid, Mira and RR Lyrae variables). Since your model > >constructs an entirely geometric explanation for the propagation of > >light, it does not admit chromatic effects, and thus it is irrelevant. > > My predicted light curves refer to the energy form one particular star > impinging on unit area at the receiver. They are expresed in terms of apparent > brightness. I am presently incorporating a log scale...which doesn't markedly > affect the curve shapes but DOES change the predicted distances at which things > happen. Whether you plot on a log or linear scale is irrelevant. What is relevant is that pulsating stars have strong wavelength dependent features which you could not model with your purely geometric "theory." For example, when moving to redder wavelengths, a cepheid can transition from having one peak to two peaks per cycle! > >Finally, it is worth pointing out that variable star light curves can > >be successfully explained by other effects, *not* your ballastic model > >(eg. temperature dependent opacity effects). Thus, we are in a > >situation where we do not need your ballastic model for variable star > >light curves, and your ballastic model is excluded for other reasons. > > Sorry, The BaT survives all known tests and is supported by a mass of > evidence...from the MMX onwards. Sorry, your "theory" does not survive many tests at all. That's why we don't let a student mark his own test. > It also predicts almost all simple variable star light curves and is the ONLY > theory that can reasonably explain the precise constancy of the periods of many > of these oscillations. Whether or not it is successful in matching some light curves is irrelevant, since there are so many other things that it fails. > Do you really believe that a supposed 'choo-choo' star like delta Cep could > maintain a period constant to withing seconds over tweny years if the process > was NOT directly linked to its orbiot period? Regarding the constancy of the period, it is well known that cepheid periods change. For example the period of SV Vul changes by 214 sec/yr (!), which would be unphysically large if it were orbital period change. Your "how could it not be" is another appeal to intuition. However, again, nature is not obliged to honor your intuition, so your comment is irrelevant. CM (*) unless the orbit is (again improbably) almost exactly face-on. But in that case you wouldn't see your "ballastic" effect.
From: bz on 23 Jun 2005 14:56
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:3p6lb1d05c132g7big468fqlttlmenjgga(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:59:21 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>I have built such circuits and observed the curves myself. I think the >>>>first time I saw such curves was on an Oscilliscope [heathkit] that I >>>>build when I was 16. >>> >>> The RO curves are not the same as these. >> >>Henri, there are different kinds of relaxation oscillators with >>different looking waveforms. I assure you that it is quite possible to >>produce any of the cepheid wavforms with a relaxation oscillator using >>the proper circuit elements. > > But why would we want to do that when we can produce the curves using > the simple model of a star in elliptical orbit? ..Particularly when its > brightness curve also matches that of a star in the same elliptical > orbit. We need to examine likely models and eliminate those that do not match the data. The He+ <--> He+2 huff and puff (as you call it) model is BETTER at explaining the data than BaT because it accounts for the DIFFERENT radial velocity curves displayed by different elements, whereas the BaT model says all elements should be traveling around the orbit at the same velocity. Doppler shift shows that they dont. >>>>>>It just so happens that the same unmistakeable curve is produced >>>>>> the acoustic waves / He+ <--> He+2 model. >>>>> >>>>> HoHohahhahah! Wherever did you read that? >>>> >>>>You have been given several references for that model. >>> >>> It isn't hard to concoct a theory when you know the answer you want. >> >>All theories start out trying to explain observed phenomia (the answer >>you want to get). Your BaT as well as any others. >> >>Shapely in his 1914 paper "On the nature and cause of Cepheid >>variation." explores various double star hypotheses available at the >>time and explains why they must be rejected. One important point is that >>"various lines [in the spectrum] show large irregular shifts, which are >>not progressive with the phase of the star in its light-period." >> >>In other words, we are NOT seeing a doppler shift due to the motion of >>the whole star, something is happening to the physical body of the star >>causing different spectral lines (different elements) to show different >>shifts. Different elements are moving inward and outward from the >>radiating surface at different times during the cycle. > > That kind of process could occur completely independently. I have always > accepted that many stars are genuinely varying 'intrinsically'. So, now we have a periodic process taking place within the star, independent of its orbiting the Henri Cool Mass. Now you have several MORE things to explain. Sir Wm. Of Ockaam will thrash you soundly with his razor. >>Of course, nothing was known or understood about how stars work at that >>time, but some kind of pulsation of the star itself was found to be the >>most likely cause of cepheid variation. Later, as fusion was understood >>and as the characteristics of He+, He+2, and H+ absorbtion/radiation >>characteristics became better known, the pulsation theory made even more >>sense. > > and NOW the BaT makes even MORE sense. http://www.aavso.org/data/download/ >>> What about the HE and H "ionisation delays" they talk about? >> >>I have no idea what you are talking about at this moment. > > it's in the paper about RT Aur...speculating about the phase > relationship between radial v and brightness. are you talking about partial ionisation zones? are you talking about the phase lag between the stars maximum brightness and its minimum radius? I don't see anything about ionisation delays. Tell me which paper we are talking about. ..... >>>>My point is that it is easy to fit a curve. >>>>It is easy to assign meanings to parameters. >>>>It is much harder to establish that those assignments are correct. >>> >>> My program doesn't just find an equation that fits a curve. >>> It produces a curve that fits an intricately constructed equation. >> >>No. Your program show the curve produced by an equation when the >>parameters are adjusted manually until the curve 'looks right'. >> >>It is not like you fed in the parameters and got the right curve on the >>first try. > > If I could get my hands on a few sets of parameters I could do it.... > but they are hard to obtain. Keep trying. >>>>> RT Aur has the exact radial velocity curve of a star in elliptical >>>>> orbit, e=~ 0.25. http://www.aavso.org/data/download/ look at the data. >>>>> So do all other 'Cepheids'. >>>> >>>>No, Henri. Only two BaT stars of the proper masses, one of which is a >>>>peculiar black hole that doesn't seem to be capturing mass from the >>>>other star [if it were, there would be massive radiation of x and >>>>gamma rays]. >>> >>> Speculation.. >> >>Phenomina observed around neutron stars and black holes. Not >>speculation. > > Lots of speculation. Observation. ..... >>>>Your curves look nice, Henri, but [not to throw you a curve] I suggest >>>>you not place your FAITH in them unless you want to form your own >>>>religion. >>> >>> SR is the religion. >> >>There may be some SR priests on usenet. >>You certainly act like a BaT priest. >> >>I have no faith in either theory. > > That's a reasonable start. That is where science starts and ends. >>> It is based solely on the notion that the Earth is the centre of the >>> universe. There is absolutely no justification for its existence. >> >>That is not a scientific statement. It is exaggeration. Once again, you >>show your faith is strong. > > I cannot see the exaggeration. That is because your faith is strong. The words you use such as "solely" and "absolutely" are unjustified exaggerations. > The only reason SR was supported was because it appeared to prop up the > religious notion that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Since it made the speed of light equal to all observers, it did NOT prop up any notion that earth was the centre of the universe. Quite to the contrary. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |