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: George Dishman on 26 Jun 2005 07:00 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:7e0tb1hireh94jusmtbrhh5ia859vbi54l(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:07:32 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:ag5pb1p7a4e8u29ohb7naivkad0g7co5nn(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:18:24 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >>>>> There is no reason to believe that all starlight is specifically >>>>> designed >>>>> to >>>>> leave its source at exactly c relative to little planet Earth. >>>> >>>>Of course not, and neither of us think that. >>> >>> You say one thing and mean another. You seem to have accidentally snipped my reply without comment. Don't accuse me of dishonesty Henri, you know it's not true: > > Apart from the odd joke now and then, I mean > > _exactly_ what I say. My thinking is based on > > the physics of Newton, LET, Ritz, or SR as > > appropriate, I have no problem keeping them > > separate. I don't think Newton wasn't explicit > > about light but none of other three suggests > > the model you state. My view is that GR and QM > > will both turn out to be subsets of something > > deeper but I have some doubts that we will > > find out what that is in my lifetime. >>>>> Only a person who still clings to the religious notion that the Earth >>>>> is >>>>> the >>>>> centre of the universe would want to believe that. >>>> >>>>I completely agree, it would be nonsensical. >>> >>> and that is WHY SR is nonsensical. >> >>If you are serious, that would be why your >>strawman alternative to SR is nonsensical. > > It passes all tests though. Then propose as "Henri's New Theory" because it is entirely original AFAIK and certainly bears no resemplance to anything I know. >>>>> The same applies to the BB. >>>> >>>>Nope, it is based on the Cosmological >>>>Principle which eliminates there being >>>>any preferred location. >>> >>> It is nonsense. >> >>The Cosmological Principle says the universe >>is homogenous and isotropic at large scales. >>What is nonsensical about that? >> >>> Light smply loses energy as it travels. >> >>Tired light doesn't produce a workable model. >>The SNe Ia data for example rules it out. > > It isn't hard to 'rule things in or out'. Indeed, the process is called "science". > Some fool will always believe you. Some fools prefer religious beliefs to hard facts. I'll stick with the science. >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm >> >>> there are otehr reasons for the galactic redshift. Its main cause is >>> that >>> we >>> lie on the outskirts of our galaxy and most light reaching us is more >>> than >>> proportionally redshifted while escaping from the centres of other >>> galaxies. >> >>That would produce a shift which was independent >>of distance. The observed shift is proportional. > > Indeed. > That's why there are other reasons. > Light is bent by matter fields. When light bends, it imparts a minute > momentum > change to whatever bends it. Indeed, and the momentum comes from the object doing the bending. > Where does the energy associated with that change come from George? > The light, of course. From the object doing the bending of course. >>>>> It is purely a creationist theory. >>>> >>>>True, but it is a scientific theory, not a >>>>matter of faith. It is the only scientific >>>>model we have that fits the observations >>>>and makes quantitative predictions, though >>>>I think there is a lot more to learn yet. >>> >>> I doubt if the majority of scientists now supports the BB concept. >> >>You have some bizarre ideas. The only group I >>know of is Narlikar and a few others and even >>they have given up on a truly steady state >>model and gone over to quasi-steady state in >>which the universe shrinks to a small size >>then rebounds pretty much as in the BB. > > there are little bangs continuously. Novae are observed regularly but since those are explosions in space, they have no relevance to Big Bang theory so how does that justify your bizarre claim regarding the "majority of scientists"? > The BB theory is about as useles as the "god made the Earth in seven days" > one. > > What came before the BB? > > Who made god? > Bloody ridiculous!! IMHO, BB theory currently only goes back to the era post baryogenesis on a sound observational (scientific) basis. Again your implication that BB goes back to zero time is merely a strawman. Clearly you cannot find any valid criticism of the real science. George
From: George Dishman on 26 Jun 2005 08:32 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:tnusb1dq91v87p1871u99j0k61govdfs1b(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:03:38 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:ahneb1hnobemhm9f616ptt31klrenqiuuv(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:05:36 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >>> SR is a maths model. >> >>All physical theories are "maths models". f=ma is >>just a model for the effect of a force on a mass. >> >>> You have to also consider the physics. Aether theory is >>> the physics behind SR. >> >>There is no aether in SR and none of the phenomena >>of LET (for which it relies on the aether) occurs, >>yet the physics of SR still produces the same >>Lorentz Transforms. Yet again you are simply >>showing that you have no understanding of the >>physics that explains that. > > Einstein effectively said, "there is apparently no aether... but let's > just > carry on as though there is one. Instead of having a light carrying medium > to > determine light speed, we will make it constant by deinition." You are still just demonstrating you have no awareness of the _alternative_ physics that goes with relativity. >>>>>>If you think some new variant of ballistic >>>>>>theory can come up with a better equation, in >>>>>>the way that quantum theory gave Planck's Law >>>>>>as an improvement on Wien's Law, then by all >>>>>>means present it and suggest a way it could >>>>>>be tested. At the moment, Ritz says dt=0 which >>>>>>is definitely wrong. >>>>> >>>>> I don't agree. >>>> >>>>I'll wait for you to show the maths that gives >>>>your alternative result but so far you haven't >>>>found any flaw in my analysis. >>> >>> It is not a top priority of mine at present.. >> >>That's OK, the ball is in your court. The world >>has been waiting since 1913 so a few more years >>won't hurt, and we have a working theory to use >>in the meantime ;-) > > George, here is a new theory. Then it isn't Ritz's, that theory remains falsified by Sagnac. Nor is what you say next a theory, it is just an idea that might be turned into a theory after a lot work. > Light does not bounce off the sagnac mirrors like little round balls > bouncing > from moving brick walls. > Photons have a 'long axis'. They are like arrows. > When they reflect, they normally maintain their orientation in space. > However > any minute movement of a mirror will change that orientation slightly. > Photons > recombining with different orientations will interfere. > Since the sense of orientation of the two sagnac beams is in opposite > directions, any rotation of the interferometer results in fringe shifts. However, we know as you said that the classical analysis provides accurate predictions for the behaviour of an interferometer so when you try to turn that idea into an actual theory, you will find the math will predict no shift. As I said, the ball is in your court to produce those equations and the proof that they are accurate when applied to all existing experiments. That is what constitutes a theory IMHO. >>>>>>That proves nothing. It is only when you >>>>>>match both the shape and amplitude to the >>>>>>velocity curve that you force the speed of >>>>>>the light leaving the system. Given the >>>>>>speed and the distance known from parallax, >>>>>>you then get the light curve so until you >>>>>>get the amplitude right you have nothing. >>>>> >>>>> Extinction George, extinction. >>>> >>>>Doesn't affect spectral lines Henri. >>> >>> That's the intresing point. If it should and it doesn't, that tells us >>> something about the intrinsic properties of a photon. They don't vary >>> with >>> speed change. >> >>It shoudn't and doesn't in either BaT or SR so >>says little. Henri, if it did you would need >>your "tick fairies". Think of light going >>through a pane of glass. The frequency must be >>the same whether you count passing wavefronts >>inside or outside the glass, what changes must >>be the wavelength. > > George, my genuine belief is that physics knows virtually nothing about > the > structure of light. Henri, my genuine belief is that you know virtually nothing about modern physics. The theory that applies to light and its interactions with matter is QED and that produces predictions more accurate than any other physical theory, to twenty significant digits in some cases I believe, so we know more about light than anything else. On the other hand, _we_ are discussing the physics of light at the level of the second decade of the 20th century. >>>>> LET gives dt=4Aw/c^2 >>>>> At this stage, Ritz doesn't want to comment. Ritz is only interested >>>>> in >>>>> the way >>>>> light travels through deep space. >>>> >>>>Ritz has no choice, it is in the nature of a theory >>>>that it must be available to anyone to apply and the >>>>theory must supply the rules of applicability. SR is >>>>not applicable in the presence of significant >>>>gravitational tidal forces for example, which rule of >>>>Ritz do you think prevents its application to Sagnac? >>> >>> Ritz says the fringe shift is pretty independent of light speed. >> >>Ritz says the fringe _position_ is independent >>of light speed, there should be no shift as a >>function of speed. >> >>Perhaps it would be useful to draw a couple of >>points together here, especially if you are >>short of time to continue the discussion, I >>know I am. >> >>In Ritz's theory, light behaves ballistically >>in a Newtionian space and time. It is emitted >>at the a speed which is the vector sum of c in >>some direction and the speed of the source. >> >>You have also made the behaviour on striking >>a mirror clear: >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:vi72b1t8hpjrkok7qfjbrvq7db6vedmg00(a)4ax.com... >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:202va1lrs7ndollrk8u7lrpdmuue4okd63(a)4ax.com: >>>>> >>>>> Consider a mirror approaching me at 0.5c. >>... >>>>> The experiment involves sending a light pulse towards it so that the >>>>> pulse will strike it when it is a) 30000 m away, and b) when it is >>>>> 3000 >>>>> m away. In both cases, the pulse returns to me at 2c. >>... >>> The light reflects from the mirror at the incident speed ...which is 1.5 >>> c >>> wrt >>> the mirror. So the return speed is 1.5 + the mirror speed, or 2c. >>> >>> Get it? >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:opj9b1lolpte4v6koigi64rrps10par0vh(a)4ax.com... >>... >>> Besides we are discussing the ballistics of an elastic ball bouncing >>> from >>> a >>> moving wall. >> >>That only leaves the detector and again you have >>made your views clear and i agree entirely, the >>behaviour of interferometric detactors is well >>characterised regardless of our understanding of >>the mechanism of interference: >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:1moeb1ds0oodcit7ijs0tbe4me4rhq8m4t(a)4ax.com... >>... >>> I think all interference, scattering, refraction etc effects are still >>> explained only by classssical wave theory. >> >>Put those together and you get an unamibuous null >>prediction for Sagnac which we know is incorrect, >>the iFOG industry is built on the failure of BaT. >> >>Anyway, if you want to leave Sagnac until another >>day, I think that summarises all we covered in the >>past weeks. Oh, one other, you made a comment a >>few days ago (I can't be bothered to look for the >>reference) that the light is rotated in the same >>direction for both beams which is also correct >>though it was a point of contention some time >>back. We are now in agreement on that point. > > The animation seems to make that clear. > I am surprised that this is the case, though. Indeed, sometimes these things are counter- intuitive. Also note that what finally convinced you is that you did the animation yourself. That's one reason why I sometimes don't answer questions but instead ask you (and others) to work it out yourself. It's not laziness on my part (at least not always) but it is sometimes the only way to end an argument and reach agreement. >>>>>>>>Displaying your inability to comprehend SR isn't >>>>>>>>a convincing argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> George, anyone can understand an unproven postulate. >>>>>> >>>>>>I can only go on what I see. What you wrote >>>>>>displays a complete lack of understanding >>>>>>of basic SR. >>>>> >>>>> Here we go! YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND. >>>>> >>>>> Of course I understand SR. >> >>Above you clearly admitted you have no knowledge >>even of the existence of SR's physics which is >>an alternative to an aether. > > It has the same equations and basic logic. Wrong again, all the equations are identical but most of the philosophical background is diametrically opposed. > SR provides every observer with a personal aether, that's the only > difference. Wrong again. I'm not going to provide the SR explaination as I am waiting for you to show you know it, and because you would only treat my reply as though I am trying to convince you SR is correct. I'm not, I'm trying to get you to either show you know SR or admit you don't Hopefully you might become curious enough to find out for yourself. > SR contractions cannot be REAL physical changes. Lorentz's are. Well done, SR say that clocks cannot be physically affected by an aether since there isn't one. That is a fundamental difference from LET which relies entirely on aether interactions. > Yet SRians claim that GPS clocks REALLY change. The satellite clocks do not _change_ between ticking on the ground and ticking in orbit but when on the ground they can be synchronised with other ground clocks and when in orbit they have to have a frequency alteration applied to remain synchronised. There is a subtle difference there that might help you. > So my conclucion is that SR is a gigantic hoax. Your conclusion instead should be that everyone else is aware of another factor that you are not taking into account. >>>>Shout all you want, I'll base my view on the >>>>content of your posts such as: >>>> >>>>> That's why I know it is just disguised aether >>>>> theory. >>>> >>>>and: >>>> >>>>> SR give the LET explanation. >>> >>> <-S1______p->_______________O >>> S2-> >>> >>> How else would two light pulses emitted by two differently moving >>> sources >>> end >>> up moving together through space? That is pure LET. >> >>"How else ..."? You say you understand SR so why >>don't you tell me? I'll give you a clue, it doesn't >>involve an aether. However, let me rephrase the >>problem in such a way that the difference between >>LET and SR may be better highlighted. >> >>A flash of light is emitted from source S and its >>speed is measured by two observers (light-speed >>meters), A and B at point X. A is moving towards >>the source while B is moving away from the source. >> >> X >> S ---------+--------> >> A --> >> <-- B >> >>Note that SR says the clocks and rulers comprising >>the light-speed meters are not slowed or shrunk in >>their own rest frames, that is part of the aether- >>based explanation. If you really understand SR, you >>can do it without an aether. > > George, you did not even understand my question. I did but the way you presented it allows the two pulses to be affected differently so I offered you an alternative question which highlights the same aspect but isn't open to that ambiguity. For example I could simply say that the speed might be determined by the refractive index of the ISM, it doesn't move the conversation forward at all. > The sources are moving and there are NO observers. If there were no observers, you have no measure of speed. It is fundamental to understanding SR that an "observer" is the measuring instrument. >>>>> Can a rod physically lengthen and shrink simultaneously, as SR claims? >>>> >>>>Obviously your "lengthen and shrink simultaneously" >>>>is just a joke but SR says the proper length is >>>>unchanged and what you say suggests you think it >>>>really changes. While you may claim to understand >>>>SR, your posts tell another story. >>> >>> George, SR dosn't know what is wants. >> >>You mean you don't know. > > the length of a rod is not affecterd by a variation in speed. > Similarly, the rate of a clock remains the same. There you are then, you know part of SR. >>> If the 'proper rate' of a GPS clock remains unchanged, why does it >>> REALLY >>> change when measured by the original observer in the original frame with >>> the >>> original time reference? >> >>Good, now you are starting to ask the right kind of >>question. When you can use the physics of SR to answer >>that question, then I will believe you when you say > > I want YOUR answer. My ability to answer wouldn't prove _you_ understood SR which is the claim you made: >>>>> Of course I understand SR. If _you_ understand SR, _you_ should be able to give that SR answer, at least for the part of the rate difference which is due to speed if not the gravitational part. >>In fact you won't need to tell me, I will see it for >>myself. In the meantime just be aware that I know >>why, Jerry, BZ, David and many others know why and >>it's the part that you have consistently shown you >>do not understand. It really would make me happy to >>think you knew the answer and simply didn't accept >>it but I really can't read your answers that way. > > George, I am quite well aware that things appear to change characteristics > when > light is used for communication. > So what? So I am still waiting for you to demonstrate your claim to understand SR and allowing for the propagation time in the GPS system won't provide an answer. > Observer speed does not cause physical changes in whatever is observed. That is what SR says, it is the opposite of LET. Now carry on and explain what _does_ cause the observed effects according to SR. George
From: Craig Markwardt on 26 Jun 2005 13:20 H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > On 23 Jun 2005 11:29:44 -0500, Craig Markwardt > <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > >> On 21 Jun 2005 10:14:39 -0500, Craig Markwardt > >> <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> 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. > > Extinction is the tendency of light to adjust to the 'natural' lightspeed > inside a medium. Giving your unsubstantiated and unconventional claims a conventional name does not make them right. Extinction has a well-defined astronomical meaning which has nothing to do with what you said. > > >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. I note, no response. > > > >> >> >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. > > There is no 'spacetime'. It is purely a maths concept. Again, your appeals to intuition are irrelevant. Whether or not "spacetime" exists, the concept of Minkowski (and then GR) spacetime is useful because it provides testable predictions (and has been tested many times). > >Whether or not that is a intuitively satisfactory answer to you is > >irrelevant. [ And, attempts have been made to test this postulate. ] > > No attempts have been made... because Einstein said it is impossible to measure > OWLS. > > >> >> >> 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. > > We shall see. I note your lack of substantiation. > >> >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). > > Where did I say that 'interferometry only works because of the Earth's > atmosphere'? Note: your misquote. What Markwardt actually wrote: : ... 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). Wilson replies: : You are forgetting that light speed is unified by the Earth's atmosphere. The speed of light is fundamental to stable interferometry. In your "theory" the speed of light is not constant hence it would prevent interferometry from working properly. *You* made the claim that I was "forgetting" about the Earth's atmosphere, as if it were important to the operation of interferometry, so the burden is on you to substantiate your claims. And in fact, inteferometry works in space (cf. Space VLBI) where your supposed "unification" of light speed is irrelevant, thus making the entire thrust of your argument irrelevant. > > >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." > > Your logic is circular. > All the accepted properties of pulsars are basd on constant light speed...so > naturally your conclusions will support that principle. Actually, that is not true. It is possible to do pulsar timing with such high precision that one can turn the problem around and test alternate theories of spacetime and radiation propagation (eg. Lorimer, Living Reviews). And, given it is possible to measure eclipses consistent with the orbit solution; and that there are known double binary pulsars whose timing signatures are mutually highly consistent, your comment is unsubstantiated. Lorimer, D., http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-5 > If you approach the pulsar phenomenon entirely from a BaT aspect, you will find > simple explanations for the points you raise. The burden would be on you to provide that substantiation. Otherwise your claim of what I "will find" is irrelevant. > > >> 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. > > I have been through this with Bob (bz). > there are no problems asociated wih having a neutron star orbiting a cepheid, > particularly when you take into account that the estimated size, period and > temperature are based on Einsteiniana. The period is based on "Einsteiniana?" Whatever. In fact, the pulsation period is directly observable. And the color temperature is directly observable as well. And since cepheid distances are well know via the classical geometric method of parallax, the sizes are known two. Stellar atmospheres is hardly "Einsteiniana." Thus your comments are unsubstantiated. > > >> 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! > > The BaT explains that very simply....although usually only one peak should be > redshifted. > In fact that is even more proof that the BaT is correct. > Double peaks are a common prediction. My comment was not about your ability to "predict" double or single peaked light curves. My point was that individual stars are *both* single and double peaked, but at different wavelengths. > > >> >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. > > we shall see. > > > > >> 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. > > It fails nowhere. > > > > >> 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. > > That kind of steady drift is easily explained by the BaT. > The binary pair responsible is itself in slow orbit around a larger mass, such > as a galactic centre. I note your continued lack of substantiation. CM
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Jun 2005 19:56 On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 12:00:37 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:7e0tb1hireh94jusmtbrhh5ia859vbi54l(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:07:32 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Light smply loses energy as it travels. >>> >>>Tired light doesn't produce a workable model. >>>The SNe Ia data for example rules it out. >> >> It isn't hard to 'rule things in or out'. > >Indeed, the process is called "science". > >> Some fool will always believe you. > >Some fools prefer religious beliefs to hard >facts. I'll stick with the science. > >>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm >>> >>>> there are otehr reasons for the galactic redshift. Its main cause is >>>> that >>>> we >>>> lie on the outskirts of our galaxy and most light reaching us is more >>>> than >>>> proportionally redshifted while escaping from the centres of other >>>> galaxies. >>> >>>That would produce a shift which was independent >>>of distance. The observed shift is proportional. >> >> Indeed. >> That's why there are other reasons. >> Light is bent by matter fields. When light bends, it imparts a minute >> momentum >> change to whatever bends it. > >Indeed, and the momentum comes from the object >doing the bending. No, George,... did you miss your introductory mechanics classes? > >> Where does the energy associated with that change come from George? >> The light, of course. > >From the object doing the bending of course. No George, we are talking about the momentum GAINED by the object causing the bending of the light. where does THAT come from? >>> >>>You have some bizarre ideas. The only group I >>>know of is Narlikar and a few others and even >>>they have given up on a truly steady state >>>model and gone over to quasi-steady state in >>>which the universe shrinks to a small size >>>then rebounds pretty much as in the BB. >> >> there are little bangs continuously. > >Novae are observed regularly but since >those are explosions in space, they have >no relevance to Big Bang theory so how >does that justify your bizarre claim >regarding the "majority of scientists"? there will be the occasional super-super-nova > >> The BB theory is about as useles as the "god made the Earth in seven days" >> one. >> >> What came before the BB? >> >> Who made god? >> Bloody ridiculous!! > >IMHO, BB theory currently only goes back >to the era post baryogenesis on a sound >observational (scientific) basis. Again >your implication that BB goes back to >zero time is merely a strawman. Clearly >you cannot find any valid criticism of >the real science. BB theory simply appealed to the gullible majority. They saw a redshift and blindly accepted that it signified velocity. > >George > 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: Henri Wilson on 26 Jun 2005 20:20
On 26 Jun 2005 12:20:07 -0500, Craig Markwardt <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: > >> On 23 Jun 2005 11:29:44 -0500, Craig Markwardt >> <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: >> >> > >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: >> >> On 21 Jun 2005 10:14:39 -0500, Craig Markwardt >> >> <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> Extinction is the tendency of light to adjust to the 'natural' lightspeed >> inside a medium. > >Giving your unsubstantiated and unconventional claims a conventional >name does not make them right. Extinction has a well-defined >astronomical meaning which has nothing to do with what you said. >> >> >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. > >I note, no response. > >> > >> >> >> >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. >> >> There is no 'spacetime'. It is purely a maths concept. > >Again, your appeals to intuition are irrelevant. Whether or not >"spacetime" exists, the concept of Minkowski (and then GR) spacetime >is useful because it provides testable predictions (and has been >tested many times). What difference does it make whether you plot something in 3D + time or 4D? > >> >Whether or not that is a intuitively satisfactory answer to you is >> >irrelevant. [ And, attempts have been made to test this postulate. ] >> >> No attempts have been made... because Einstein said it is impossible to measure >> OWLS. >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> We shall see. > >I note your lack of substantiation. You appear completely ignorant of the principles of the BaT and its rammifications. You are never likely to admit you have been completely wrong. The BaT provides simple answer to most astronomical mysteries. It predicts and matches the majority of obserevd light curves. It explains why variation can be virtually dead constant over long periods. The BaT stands up to all tests and criticism. Light leaves its source at c wrt the source. Light does not leave its source at c wrt little planet Earth. >> >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). >> >> Where did I say that 'interferometry only works because of the Earth's >> atmosphere'? > >Note: your misquote. > >What Markwardt actually wrote: > : ... 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). > >Wilson replies: > : You are forgetting that light speed is unified by the Earth's atmosphere. > >The speed of light is fundamental to stable interferometry. In your >"theory" the speed of light is not constant hence it would prevent >interferometry from working properly. *You* made the claim that I was >"forgetting" about the Earth's atmosphere, as if it were important to >the operation of interferometry, so the burden is on you to >substantiate your claims. And in fact, inteferometry works in space >(cf. Space VLBI) where your supposed "unification" of light speed is >irrelevant, thus making the entire thrust of your argument irrelevant. Angular errors would be insignificantly small and could not be separated from fact. How would you know what was right and what was out by a fraction of a second? >> >> Your logic is circular. >> All the accepted properties of pulsars are basd on constant light speed...so >> naturally your conclusions will support that principle. > >Actually, that is not true. It is possible to do pulsar timing with >such high precision that one can turn the problem around and test >alternate theories of spacetime and radiation propagation >(eg. Lorimer, Living Reviews). And, given it is possible to measure >eclipses consistent with the orbit solution; and that there are known >double binary pulsars whose timing signatures are mutually highly >consistent, your comment is unsubstantiated. There is no reason do believe that the rotation of pulsars significantly involves the BaT anyway. The velocities might be are too small to worry about. > > Lorimer, D., http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-5 > >> If you approach the pulsar phenomenon entirely from a BaT aspect, you will find >> simple explanations for the points you raise. > >The burden would be on you to provide that substantiation. Otherwise >your claim of what I "will find" is irrelevant. Well, it is not easy to obtain precise information about pulsars...so I can hardly even worry about them. > >> >> >> 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. >> >> I have been through this with Bob (bz). >> there are no problems asociated wih having a neutron star orbiting a cepheid, >> particularly when you take into account that the estimated size, period and >> temperature are based on Einsteiniana. > >The period is based on "Einsteiniana?" Whatever. In fact, the >pulsation period is directly observable. Not necessarily. At larger distances, BaT 'time compression' can occur, giving a distorted figure. >And the color temperature is >directly observable as well. And since cepheid distances are well >know via the classical geometric method of parallax, the sizes are >known two. Stellar atmospheres is hardly "Einsteiniana." Thus your >comments are unsubstantiated. Parallax is hardly accurate beyond about 20 LYs. Apparent brightness and colour can be markedly affected by light's slowing when escaping the huge gravity of a large star and maybe neutron star. The assumption that light moves always at c has confused the whole picture. Have you ever seriously considered the alternative? I suggest you do..because the overall picture becomes much more clear. >> >> 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! >> >> The BaT explains that very simply....although usually only one peak should be >> redshifted. >> In fact that is even more proof that the BaT is correct. >> Double peaks are a common prediction. > >My comment was not about your ability to "predict" double or single >peaked light curves. My point was that individual stars are *both* >single and double peaked, but at different wavelengths. Are you saying that for one particular star, its red light might be double peaked but its blue light only singly peaked? i would like to know the details please. >> >> >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. >> >> we shall see. >> >> > >> >> 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. >> >> It fails nowhere. >> >> > >> >> 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. >> >> That kind of steady drift is easily explained by the BaT. >> The binary pair responsible is itself in slow orbit around a larger mass, such >> as a galactic centre. > >I note your continued lack of substantiation. Time limits what I can do. See my (still evolving) program if you want to learn all about the BaT. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > >CM > > 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. |