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: Odysseus on 21 Aug 2005 20:41 Henri Wilson wrote: > <snip> > > 'Apparent magnitude', the standard measure, is a log scale. 1 unit difference > is a five fold increase in actual observed brightness. No, more like two-and-a-half-fold -- the precise factor is the fifth root of one hundred, or alog(0.4). > I use a base e, with 1 representing zero brightness.....but that is OK becasue > the height of the curves is pretty arbitrary anyway. > You can't have a zero point on a logarithmic scale -- that would be an infinite distance down the axis. A unit multiplier will be at the point marked 0 because for all bases b, b^0 = 1. -- Odysseus
From: Henri Wilson on 22 Aug 2005 01:55 On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:41:17 GMT, Odysseus <odysseus1479-at(a)yahoo-dot.ca> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> ><snip> >> >> 'Apparent magnitude', the standard measure, is a log scale. 1 unit difference >> is a five fold increase in actual observed brightness. > >No, more like two-and-a-half-fold -- the precise factor is the fifth >root of one hundred, or alog(0.4). > >> I use a base e, with 1 representing zero brightness.....but that is OK becasue >> the height of the curves is pretty arbitrary anyway. >> > >You can't have a zero point on a logarithmic scale -- that would be >an infinite distance down the axis. A unit multiplier will be at the >point marked 0 because for all bases b, b^0 = 1. Yes, I have assigned zero brightness the value log1. I add 1 to all my brightness values then take the log. My output scale is comparative and arbitrary anyway. I am basically interested in producing brightness curves with similar shapes to observed ones. 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: Paul B. Andersen on 22 Aug 2005 04:18 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:04:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:20:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> > > >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>>Anyone who can conclude that little planet Earth is the centre of the universe >>>>>as far as all starlight is concerned should be able to conclude just about >>>>>anything. >>>> >>>>I see. >>>>So you have come to the conclusion "that little planet Earth is >>>>the centre of the universe as far as all starlight is concerned", >>>>and think that you might as well believe in WCHs. >>>> >>>>You are living in Wonderland, aren't you? >>> >>>Message ignored. >>> >>>Andersen obviously drunk again! >> >>So why are you the one who are raving? >> >>Listen Henry. >>YOU wrote: >>" Anyone who can conclude that little planet Earth >> is the centre of the universe as far as all starlight >> is concerned should be able to conclude just about >> anything." >> >>I have never ever seen anyone but YOU conclude that >>the invariance of light imply that: >>"Little planet Earth is the centre of the Universe". >> >>This conclusion is YOURS. >> >>I don't think you can find even another crank who would >>agree that the invariance of light imply that there is >>a preferred frame of reference - the Earth frame. >>It is just too stupid. > > > The idea is indeed very stupid...and it is obviously hard for you to accept the > fact that such stupidity underlies your own belief system. > You have ben fooled Paul, by the world's greater ever hoaxer. So you know the idea: "the invariance of the speed of light implies the existence of a preferred frame" is stupid, but you claim it anyway? Your stupidity do indeed never cease to amaze. >>But your ignorance and stupidity never cease to amaze. > > > That is a quote you stole from Seto. It's true anyway. I AM amazed. Paul
From: George Dishman on 22 Aug 2005 15:02 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:9k1ig11oa73n2ln6mcgf2e72dl135d0efn(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:46:50 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:2kgfg1936kpv9pgn977d37bvkjpj4msjek(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:08:57 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >>>>To do that, he needs (IIRC, it was some time ago) a >>>>distance of about 120LY. A rough estimate without >>>>calculation would be an order greater than 2.09 mas >>>>(since that is circa 1200) so around 21 mas or about >>>>20 standard deviations from the measured value. It >>>>may not be significant though because he can adjust >>>>various other parameters (e.g. eccentricity and >>>>inclination) so may be able to match any value. >>> >>> George, distance and maximum radial velocity are conjugate ( I think >>> that's the >>> right word). >>> I can produce almost the exact curve for RT Aur using maximum radial >>> velocity >>> of 0.0001c, eccentricity=0.26, yaw angle -140 and distance about 1400 >>> LYs. >> >>Without having done a proper analysis, I suspected >>something like that. The key her is that for a >>greater distance, you have to reduce the velocity. >>That would show up in the velocity curve as a >>simple scaling factor hence won't change the shape >>but might cause a discrepancy if you show the >>vertical scale on the axes. That why I aked you >>to add them some time ago, it is really important. > > Consider two stars in separate orbits with the same eccentricity and yaw. > Let > one have maximum velocity 0.0001c and the other 0.0002c. Orbit planes are > both > edge on. > > The second will have the same brightness curve as the first but at twice > the > distance. But the velocity curve will have double the amplitude, that's why it is essential that you put scales on the curves. > Incidentally, if the orbit plane is rotated around an axis perpendicular > to the > LOS, the distance blows out by a simple cosine factor. I expected that for the same reason that stellar masses are often only known as M * sin(I) >>> My >>> brightness is now shown on a log scale, which increases the distance >>> accordingly. I was using a linear output before. >> >>If you are comparing against the published curves, >>you obviously need to use the same format. > > 'Apparent magnitude', the standard measure, is a log scale. 1 unit > difference > is a five fold increase in actual observed brightness. No, 5 magnitudes is 2 decades or 100 fold. mag_rel = 2.5 * log_10( I_1 / I_2 ) There are many pages on this, e.g.: http://www.noao.edu/outreach/nop/nophigh/steve6.html > I use a base e, with 1 representing zero brightness.....but that is OK > becasue > the height of the curves is pretty arbitrary anyway. That is my point though the height of these curves is crucial. That equation is so close to what you are doing already, it wouldn't take you any significant effort to show the relative magnitude on the Y scale. > No, I think my own presentation is out of phase. The starting point of the > two > curves is not the same. I am looking into it. If my intuition is correct, for a circular orbit the mininimum of the intensity curve should correspond to the velocity curve passing through the midpoint and changing from blue shift to red shift. I could be wrong though. It would be interesting to see what is predicted by the conventional Cepheid model. I haven't looked yet but will later if I get the time. >>You need to put some limits on what "Very vague" >>means before I can comment. Perhaps mail the >>authors? >> >>> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/georgeceph.jpg >> >>That's a much clearer picture than I got before, >>nice. However, without the numbers on the axes it >>doesn't tell me anything. Can you add them please. > > It's the shape that matters. No, it is correspondence of both shapes, both amplitudes and the phase, otherwise you have too many adjustable parameters for the result to have any meaning. You should have all that information produced by your model anyway, just add the scales so everyone can see. George
From: George Dishman on 22 Aug 2005 16:26
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:plefg11qsoapu2dc2u7mgs53jjg5mt4o20(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:51:53 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:ldmbg1t874e8te0aiodjthqhb4lre6hdlv(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:32:01 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>>It is in deed. Now remember that axes are >>>>orthogonal and draw a spacetime diagram and >>>>you will see the consequence is what I said >>>>above. >>> >>> The length will be the same irrespective of the speed. >> >>If you just repeat your preconceptions, you >>won't learn and your arguments will always >>be directed at irrelevant strawmen. Try doing >>as I suggested. > > George, can you not get away from the idea that 'lengths' have to be > measured > to be LENGTHS. I have to educate you somehow. If you split the distance between two points into x and y components, the values measured along those axes depend on the orientation of the axes. You know that Henri. It is splitting the distance into components for measurement that creates the variation. > The length of space occupied by a rod does not change with speed. The > proof is > trivial...as I have pointed out many times. I haven't seen that one but all your proofs so far have simply assumed 3-space and time are absolute, you haven't offered any proofs at all, just assertions. > Human attempts to compare a rod's length at different speeds may produce > conflicting results because of flaws in the measuring techniques. No, they produce differing results because a variation is inherent in the act of measuring. >>>>Precisely, that is exactly what I am saying. >>>> >>>>> 'Lengths of space' and 'intervals of time' are natural phenomena. >>>> >>>>No they aren't, 'space' and 'time' or 'spacetime' >>>>is the natural phenomenon while 'Lengths of space' >>>>and 'intervals of time' are numbers read off >>>>rulers and clocks and those relate back to axes. >>>>Change the orientation of the axes and you change >>>>only the measurement, not the underlying reality. >>> >>> ..but George, a 'length of space' can be specified very easily without >>> being >>> measured. >> >>No, a region of space can be defined but the >>length of that region is a measurement. > > OK, call it a region of space if you want to include more than one spatial > dimension.. That wasn't my intention, just that "a region" is unquantified until you measure it. However, you make a good point, it is fact that there is no absolute direction in space that allows us to trade off x and y components. >>> Just take a piece of wood......that defines a length of space. >>> >>> It doesn't need a number to be a 'length of space'.. >> >>Yes it does, otherwise it is just "some space". > > Like an orbit is just 'some time'. > That's all it has to be for my experiment. The 'some' part is constant. Constant, but not single valued. You can trade space and time by rotating the x-t axes just as you can trade space-space by rotating the axes in the x-y plane. >>> A rigid rod defines a 'fixed length of space'. >>> An orbit defines a 'fixed length of time'. >> >>Same problem Henri, you are just repeating >>preconception that are untrue in GR. Use >>those asumptions in your proof and it is >>invalid. > > George, GR doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. That's OK, I already knew you were in denial ... >>> George, it is my intention to conflict with GR. So you want to conflict with something that doesn't exist? Hmmmm. Tricky ... >>> George, when are you going to accept that observer behavior cannot >>> affect >>> the observed? >> >>When are you going to start litening to what I >>say instead of inventing alternatives? Look >>back through this post and see if you can find >>why I say that. > > You are repeating over and over that the orbit duration depends on who > measures > it. No, that's a nice strawman too. I am repeating that the values measured along an axis depend on the orientation of that axis. > I am trying to convince you that no matter what figure you out n the orbit > duration, it will n ot change due to clock movement. And I am trying to get you to listen when I say I have never disputed that each of the values is constant, they are just not the same value. > Define the orbit duration as 1, 100, 1000 or 1000000 'time units' and that > value will not change due to any observer activity. Of course, but you are still trying to define two different durations as the same 1, or 100 or whatever number of units. You can't do that and your attempt at a proof fails as a result. >>>>Different components for x and y only signifies >>>>what you said before, that direction in space >>>>is not absolute. The same applies to z, y, z, t >>>>components in the spacetime of GR. >>> >>> 't' doesn't have a spatial direction. >> >>Inventing more things for me to say Henri? >>At no time did I suggest 't' was spatial. > > The 't' in GR is actually 'ct' (c=1) which has the dimensions of length. > ... Don't try to tell me about relativity until you learn it yourself Henri. You forgot that the sign of the terms differs. The 't' part is "-ct^2" so it would be 'ict' and have units of imaginary length whatever that might mean. Time is not the same as space and the equations always reflect that. I won't waste my time educating you any more on this, if you want to understand, study the subject. George |