Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Henri Wilson on 5 May 2005 17:48 On 5 May 2005 05:32:35 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >Henri > > Why don't you specifically list verifiable contradictions - logical >contradictions >and experimental disproofs? If you had been watching this NG for te last few years you would know that is what has been done. > >I think it is insructive to discuss each one in turn and bring some >other dark grey matter >into the picture > >BTW the evidence on Cephids does not seem as strongly in favour of SRT >as I thought. Of course not. It support the BaT. The curves are most typical of stars in low eccentricity orbits. > >G 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 5 May 2005 17:58 On 5 May 2005 00:25:48 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >My Dear friend Henri, >It is the electon that couples it all together. >The Electron knows the speed of light. >And it know how much energy separatated it from it's >sister Positron. > >Electron-positron Annihilation and Pair Creation. >Compton Scattering >http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/electron-positron.htm > > That's all good stuff....as long as one can be certain as to what 'c' actually is. >Kind regards, >Sue... 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: bz on 6 May 2005 20:43 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:flkn715rl3bcse1o9fl4hk881hqf9h22hl(a)4ax.com: > On Fri, 6 May 2005 04:37:57 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:6r5l71tcsg364evj46ig87di6ve52se98p(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Thu, 5 May 2005 12:20:50 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>> >>> No you have it all wrong. >>> Observer movement cannot affect anything. >> >>Observer movement affects many things. > > ...but not physical propeties of objects 1 billion LYs away. :) Of course not. But the motion of the observer (wrt the distant source[we have to specify wrt, and it is meaningless to specify velocity wrt the light itself as that is alway c]) does effect the frequency/wavelength/energy [but not the velocity] of light being observed here, that was emitted by the objects 1 billion LYs away. >>>>>>So, as you go faster, your mass and the mass of your test equipment >>>>>>all increase. When you go to measure the mass of the mass itself, >>>>>>you will measure a smaller value for its mass. >>>>> >>>>> That's aether theory. > >>> A circular orbit produces a sinelike curve that develops peaks at >>> critical observer distances. The curves are skewed according to amount >>> of orbit eccentricity. >>> >>> For instance R Andromedae has eccentricity about 0.2 and leans to the >>> left. T Cas leans to the right showing it spins the opposite way. Its >>> dimmer companion also contributes to the total brightness curve. >>> >>> These curves are so obviously the result of faster light catching the >>> slower light that only a fool would want to explain them some other >>> way. >>> >> >>Even if the speed of light were constant, there will be variations in >>brightness unless we are looking exactly down on the plane of the orbit >>of the two stars. > > If the plane is tilted, a cosine factor is applied. The critical > distance is increased. Does that mean that you agree or disagree? My statement is that there will still be variations in brightness, even if the speed of light is constant, in double star systems. {unless the plane of oscillation is exactly 90 degrees wrt the line between the pair of stars and the observer}. ..... >>> Run my program and see for yourself. >>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >>> It is very comprehensive and might take days to understand properly. >> >>It would help if some of the colors were different. Some of the text is >>very hard to read. Black on dark blue is impossible to read and black on >>dark green is difficult. > > I have had the same trouble. There is a compatibility problem with the > program. Colours vary according to individual computer settings. I have > changed the colours a few times but hte problem persists. Allow the user to change the colors. Problem solved. > I am eventually going to have to persevere with Java, which I hate. My sympathy. >>> Try eccentricity 0.5, yaw angle -90. That produces what are >>> categorized as 'eclipsing binaries' like Algol. Most of them aren't >>> eclipsing at all. The same eccentricities and +90 yaw produces 'flare >>> stars'. They aren't really flaring! >>> >>> Low eccentricities produce the very comon curves like R And. >>> >>> I recently included a rough indication of the way the thermal >>> molecular speeds would affect the brightness curves. As you know, >>> these speeds are very high in stars. >> >>yes. >> >>> >>> If you run the program with 'scan on' it will take quite a few seconds >>> to produce the results, depending on your computer speed. >>> >>> One of these runs would probably be equivalent to a lifetime's work by >>> DeSitter. >>> >> >>How do I know when it has finished? > > A whole page of curves appears. White lines on a black window. > >>>>If the latter, do you know for a fact that SR models can NOT generate >>>>similar curves? >>> >>> Definitely not. >> >>I think that there MUST be variation in brightness, even if the stars >>move so slowly that there is no doppler shift, so I don't believe that >>there would be no variation in brightness for dual stars in a SRian >>universe. > > The standard explanation is that the stars are varying intrinsically, > due to some kind of cyclical internal process. Some variable stars are probably due to some kind of oscillations inside the star. But any double star system will show variations in brightness due to one star blocking some of the light from the other star. Take a 100 watt light bulb and a 7 watt light bulb and put them 3 inches apart. Plot the observed light intensity in a plane throught the centers of both bulbs. It will vary with direction, giving a minimum where the small bulb is blocking as much of the large bulb as possible, maxima on a line normal to the line through the centers of the two bulbs and a slight broad minimum where the large bulb is hiding the small bulb. Different results with identical sized bulbs with same wattage. Different results with identical sized bulbs with different wattage. Different results in all cases when plane of 'rotation' is tilted. > I think this is absolutely impossible, given the constancy of virtually > all the observed brightness variations. Whether or not one or both of a dual star system is also a variable star is another question. ..... >>> SR is superfluous. >> >>So, if LET produces the same predictions that SR does, have your program >>generate and compare LET to BaT. > > There is NO comparison at all. > The effect simply doesn't exist is the speed of all light in the > universe is c relative to planet Earth. There will be an effect on the observed brightness, as I illustrated above with stationary light bulbs. Compare the predicted observed brightness with your BaT predictions. ..... >>> SR doesn't produce any variation in brightness. >> >>I doubt that in a SRian universe there would be no variation in >>brightness for double stars. Is that really what you want to say? > > You should learn something about the subject before you comment. I know something about the subject. There will be variations in observed brightness. Try it with the lightbulbs. ..... >>> You can see the effects of one or two stars of a binary pair. >> >>But I can't compare to SRian/LET results. And I don't know the math used >>by your program so I can't independently check it in another program >>(such as mathcad). > > SR says NO brightness variation unless intrinsic. When one star blocks the light from the other, the observed brightness will be less. Are you calling that 'intrinsic'? I don't think that is what you mean by intrinsic, I think you mean the total of intrinsic brightness of the two stars. But they do NOT sum together to a constant value. Think of it as an eclipse of one sun by another. If they are the same size and brightness the brightness will drop to half when one exactly blocks our view of the other. > If you run the introduction of my program you will see thhe effect of > 'light bunching' due to the c+v factor as the star orbits. Yes, but I don't have the ability to see the what happens to the brightness when they don't 'bunch' because the BaT effect is removed. >>>>> Light travels across vast regions ogf space >>>>> at c wrt its source. What would make it do otherwise? >>>> >>>>And at c wrt every bit of matter in those vast regions of space. >>> >>> That's a perfect example of indoctrination. >> >>No it is an example of consitancy. Do you expect me to take your word >>for 'BaT being better than SR' without strong evidence? >>Do you expect my answers to be inconsistent with SR? > > I'm giving you the bloody evidence. > > there is NO evidence in favour of SR. The SAME evidence you are using to support BaT can be used to support SR UNLESS you can show what EACH predicts for the observed brightness and that BaT produces a better prediction than SR. ..... >>> My program shows and says it all. >> >>NO. It does not allow me to compare results for SRian and BaT universes. > > ..I give up. > The constancy of all brightness variations on it own is surely enough > proof . No, one side of the comparision is not enough, by itself. .... >>> That is not a particularly good example because much of the data is >>> missing (this happens due largely to weather). >>> see its other curve: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00058.gif >>> However it is indicative of a star orbiting very rapidly around >>> another dark heavy mass, maybe a neutron star. >>> Ecc ~0.2, yaw around 45. >>> I would need to know how doppler shift changes each cycle to give you >>> an estimate of Z Cam's distance form Earth. >> >>And I need to compare BaT and SRian predictions. > > I have told you. THere is NO SR prediction at all. Have I convinced you that THAT statement must be wrong? >>>>and show the orbital parameters of the stars needed to fit the curve. >>>>Do this under SR and under BaT. ]] >>> >>> SR doesn't predict anything. It assumes all light travels from the >>> star to planet Earth at c, no matter how the star is moving in its >>> orbit. >> >>There will still be variations in brightness. > > If the companion star is large, dark but not cold, there will be a daily > temperature variation in the face of the star whose brightness we are > investigating. That complicates the predicted brightness curves. > I have discussed this at length previously. The star does NOT need to be large, or dark, even with two equal sized stars of equal brightness, there will be variations in light intensity as long as one star parially eclipses the other. ..... >>>>Show why BaT gives a more likely set of >>>>stars. >>> >>> I don't understand what you mean by that. >>> Maybe you have the wrong idea entirely. >> >>Perhaps. I know that two stars rotating around each other will produce >>variations in brightness even if the stars are identical in size and >>brightness. This will happen in SRian and BaT universes. > > That is not true. > You are getting confused. > The whole argument against the BaT was based on DeSitter's claims that > stars which SHOULD exhibit brightness variations don't do so. ..... >>I will not bother to read those who don't respect others enough to treat >>them with respect. > > I have stoped reading most of that nonsense. > Yours is getting pretty hopeless too, but at least not insulting. If anything I have ever said seems like it was intended to insult or put you down in any way, you have my appology. ..... ..... >> BTW, you should see the superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR. >> It >>hold 2000 Ltrs of Liquid Helium. I don't know how much liquid nitrogen >>goes into the outer jacket. The dewar must be 1.5 or 2 meters in >>diameter and close to 2 meters high. Huge! > > That's impressive. How long does it take to cool the stuff? It would not have taken quite so long if the magnet hadn't quenched the first time they got it up to field. 2000 Ltrs of liquid Helium make quite a bit of very cold helium gas. The fog set off the fire alarm and cleared out our 7 story building. Of course, that was good (at least for the basement) because it was NOT healthy to try to breath pure He (lack of O2 can be fatal). ..... >>> ....but that doesn't affect the fact >>> that we have 'proof' about lightning down to that level of definition. >> >>'proof to the level of definition' seems to be some kind of magic phrase >> to you. I don't see it that way. >> >> Either something is a definition or it is based on evidence and thus >> subject to change as new data comes in. > > I think that if it is subject to change EVER, then it is not proven to > any level. And that is the way it is with scientific theories. Contrast that with DATA. Data is known but what it means may be subject to review. > It can be subject to REFINEMENT maybe but not change outside the axioms > of the 'proof'. It sounds like We have a slightly different concept of science. ..... >>> Relativity has stood attacks for 100 years simply because the typical >>> differences between c and c+v were not measureable....and of course >>> the relativist DeSitter had wrongly 'demonstrated' that binary star >>> evidence disproved the BaT. >> >>Wrongly? > > It has been shown to be wrong by a fellow called Fox. > Walter Ritz, Sekerin and others are well published supporters of the > BaT. I am not the only one by any means. I will take a look. ..... >>> Ask any SRian, if you don't believe me. >>> Ask Tom Roberts. He's your leader. >> >>I don't know a Tom Roberts. He certainly isn't MY leader. > > You will come across many of his 'learned' contributions here. > He is the authority on SR and everything else. ok. ..... >>>>>>You can't say that data which supports SR and BaT is evidence for >>>>>>BaT over SR. You need an experiment where SR and BaT predict >>>>>>DIFFERENT results. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that OWLS=TWLS=c doesn't support SR at all. >>>> >>>>It doesn't? >>> >>> No >> >>Care to elucidate? > > It supports the BaT. Check it yourself. > Light moves at c wrt its source and everything at rest with the source. That is also Predicted by SR, so it can't be used to determine which is better. ..... >>>>I am familiar with his thought experiment. >>> >>> It is NOT a thought experiment. >>> It is a practical way of adjusting clocks. >> >>His was a thought experiment. > > No, it was and still is a practical way to synch two separated clocks. It might be that also. ..... >>Much of what I see around here makes me sick at my stomach. If I read >>that, I will go away. >> >>If you have already anwered the above questions about your code, then >>say 'please see article .....' or 'google for it, I already said it >>before'. >> >>If you haven't answered my questions, then I still want an answer. > > People like Wormley or Uncle Al will never say anything positive, just a > few insults and web references. > To me, that shows they have no ability to think for themselves. I don't like to see anyone run down by anybody. ..... >>>>> Nobody who beleives it is nonsense and wants a career in science >>>>> would dare say it is nonsense. >>>>> They would fail their exams and be kicked out. >>>> >>>>No. If they had experimental data to support their claim, they would >>>>get their PhD and a nobel prize. >>> >>> if you rock thhe boat, you get tipped overboard. >> >>You are in the wrong ocean. > > Not any longer. I can say and think as I like now. Good. >>.... >>>>> Relativity is a true religion. >>>> >>>>Not among true scientists. >>> >>> Maybe in most areas.... but not when it comes to relativity. >>> Einstein made it so difficult to understand that not many have the >>> courage to challenge it. >> >>I don't think that is why it hasn't been challenged more. > > It has.. but the means to disprove it have not been available unitl > recently. I search for truth. ..... >>Predictions of light intensity are possible in an SRian universe and a >>BaT universe. Are they different? How much? Which gives better fits to >>real data?? > > SRians and the whole of the astrophsics community firmly believe that > the stars intrinsically vary periodically, for some unknown reason. > They produce all kinds of totally unlikely reason why this might happen. It remains to be seen whether or not there are any likely reasons. ..... -- 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
From: Henri Wilson on 7 May 2005 19:24 On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:43:38 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:flkn715rl3bcse1o9fl4hk881hqf9h22hl(a)4ax.com: > >> On Fri, 6 May 2005 04:37:57 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >>> >>>Observer movement affects many things. >> >> ...but not physical propeties of objects 1 billion LYs away. :) > >Of course not. What about 1mm away? > >But the motion of the observer (wrt the distant source[we have to specify >wrt, and it is meaningless to specify velocity wrt the light itself as that >is alway c]) does effect the frequency/wavelength/energy [but not the >velocity] of light being observed here, that was emitted by the objects 1 >billion LYs away. How can you pretend to discuss something seriously when you have already assumed the answer? >>>Even if the speed of light were constant, there will be variations in >>>brightness unless we are looking exactly down on the plane of the orbit >>>of the two stars. >> >> If the plane is tilted, a cosine factor is applied. The critical >> distance is increased. > >Does that mean that you agree or disagree? My statement is that there will >still be variations in brightness, even if the speed of light is constant, >in double star systems. {unless the plane of oscillation is exactly 90 >degrees wrt the line between the pair of stars and the observer}. why should there be brightnness variations if lightspeed is c wrt the observer? please explain. > >.... >>>> Run my program and see for yourself. >>>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >>>> It is very comprehensive and might take days to understand properly. >>> >>>It would help if some of the colors were different. Some of the text is >>>very hard to read. Black on dark blue is impossible to read and black on >>>dark green is difficult. >> >> I have had the same trouble. There is a compatibility problem with the >> program. Colours vary according to individual computer settings. I have >> changed the colours a few times but hte problem persists. > >Allow the user to change the colors. Problem solved. That isn't so easy but I'll have a look at it. .. > >> I am eventually going to have to persevere with Java, which I hate. > >My sympathy. > >>>> Try eccentricity 0.5, yaw angle -90. That produces what are >>>> categorized as 'eclipsing binaries' like Algol. Most of them aren't >>>> eclipsing at all. The same eccentricities and +90 yaw produces 'flare >>>> stars'. They aren't really flaring! >>>> >>>> Low eccentricities produce the very comon curves like R And. >>>> >>>> I recently included a rough indication of the way the thermal >>>> molecular speeds would affect the brightness curves. As you know, >>>> these speeds are very high in stars. >>> >>>yes. >>> >>>> >>>> If you run the program with 'scan on' it will take quite a few seconds >>>> to produce the results, depending on your computer speed. >>>> >>>> One of these runs would probably be equivalent to a lifetime's work by >>>> DeSitter. >>>> >>> >>>How do I know when it has finished? >> >> A whole page of curves appears. White lines on a black window. >> >>>>>If the latter, do you know for a fact that SR models can NOT generate >>>>>similar curves? >>>> >>>> Definitely not. >>> >>>I think that there MUST be variation in brightness, even if the stars >>>move so slowly that there is no doppler shift, so I don't believe that >>>there would be no variation in brightness for dual stars in a SRian >>>universe. >> >> The standard explanation is that the stars are varying intrinsically, >> due to some kind of cyclical internal process. > >Some variable stars are probably due to some kind of oscillations inside >the star. But any double star system will show variations in brightness due >to one star blocking some of the light from the other star. These are categorized as 'eclipsing binaries'. It turns out that the BaT predicts similar curves for single orbiting stars in higher eccentricity orbits. There is NO eclipse, at all. > >Take a 100 watt light bulb and a 7 watt light bulb and put them 3 inches >apart. Plot the observed light intensity in a plane throught the centers of >both bulbs. It will vary with direction, giving a minimum where the small >bulb is blocking as much of the large bulb as possible, maxima on a line >normal to the line through the centers of the two bulbs and a slight broad >minimum where the large bulb is hiding the small bulb. > >Different results with identical sized bulbs with same wattage. >Different results with identical sized bulbs with different wattage. > >Different results in all cases when plane of 'rotation' is tilted. Yes yes, we know all that. > >> I think this is absolutely impossible, given the constancy of virtually >> all the observed brightness variations. > >Whether or not one or both of a dual star system is also a variable star is >another question. The standard approach is to assume all variation to be due to either an eclipse or an internal process. BaT shows otherwise. ...and explains the constancy of the typically observed periods . >>>So, if LET produces the same predictions that SR does, have your program >>>generate and compare LET to BaT. >> >> There is NO comparison at all. >> The effect simply doesn't exist is the speed of all light in the >> universe is c relative to planet Earth. > >There will be an effect on the observed brightness, as I illustrated above >with stationary light bulbs. Compare the predicted observed brightness with >your BaT predictions. There are plenty of assumed 'eclipsing binaries. See the britastro website again. Many may not be eclipsing binaries at all. > >.... >>>> SR doesn't produce any variation in brightness. >>> >>>I doubt that in a SRian universe there would be no variation in >>>brightness for double stars. Is that really what you want to say? >> >> You should learn something about the subject before you comment. > >I know something about the subject. There will be variations in observed >brightness. Try it with the lightbulbs. Learn some more. > >.... > >>>> You can see the effects of one or two stars of a binary pair. >>> >>>But I can't compare to SRian/LET results. And I don't know the math used >>>by your program so I can't independently check it in another program >>>(such as mathcad). >> >> SR says NO brightness variation unless intrinsic. > >When one star blocks the light from the other, the observed brightness will >be less. Are you calling that 'intrinsic'? I don't think that is what you >mean by intrinsic, I think you mean the total of intrinsic brightness of >the two stars. But they do NOT sum together to a constant value. > >Think of it as an eclipse of one sun by another. If they are the same size >and brightness the brightness will drop to half when one exactly blocks our >view of the other. learn some more. > >> If you run the introduction of my program you will see thhe effect of >> 'light bunching' due to the c+v factor as the star orbits. > >Yes, but I don't have the ability to see the what happens to the brightness >when they don't 'bunch' because the BaT effect is removed. Obviously the brightness remains constant. Of course, it is theoretically possible to have a star that is hot on one side and cold on the other. As it rotates on its axis, ts brightness changes with a constant period...but I doubt very much if that happens in the real world. Our sun certainly isn't like that. >> I'm giving you the bloody evidence. >> >> there is NO evidence in favour of SR. > >The SAME evidence you are using to support BaT can be used to support SR >UNLESS you can show what EACH predicts for the observed brightness and that >BaT produces a better prediction than SR. Learn some more. Only a small proportion of variable stars is categorized as 'eclipsing'. >>> >>>And I need to compare BaT and SRian predictions. >> >> I have told you. THere is NO SR prediction at all. > >Have I convinced you that THAT statement must be wrong? SR predicts constant brighthtness, except in the case of eclipsing binaries. Happy now? > >> >> If the companion star is large, dark but not cold, there will be a daily >> temperature variation in the face of the star whose brightness we are >> investigating. That complicates the predicted brightness curves. >> I have discussed this at length previously. > >The star does NOT need to be large, or dark, even with two equal sized >stars of equal brightness, there will be variations in light intensity as >long as one star parially eclipses the other. Learn some more. Only a small proportion of variable stars is categorized as 'eclipsing'. > >.... >>>>>Show why BaT gives a more likely set of >>>>>stars. >>>> >>>> I don't understand what you mean by that. >>>> Maybe you have the wrong idea entirely. >>> >>>Perhaps. I know that two stars rotating around each other will produce >>>variations in brightness even if the stars are identical in size and >>>brightness. This will happen in SRian and BaT universes. >> >> That is not true. >> You are getting confused. >> The whole argument against the BaT was based on DeSitter's claims that >> stars which SHOULD exhibit brightness variations don't do so. > >.... > >>>I will not bother to read those who don't respect others enough to treat >>>them with respect. >> >> I have stoped reading most of that nonsense. >> Yours is getting pretty hopeless too, but at least not insulting. > >If anything I have ever said seems like it was intended to insult or put >you down in any way, you have my appology. No need. I converse with you because you appear be genuinely wanting to inquire. > >.... >.... >>> BTW, you should see the superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR. >>> It >>>hold 2000 Ltrs of Liquid Helium. I don't know how much liquid nitrogen >>>goes into the outer jacket. The dewar must be 1.5 or 2 meters in >>>diameter and close to 2 meters high. Huge! >> >> That's impressive. How long does it take to cool the stuff? > >It would not have taken quite so long if the magnet hadn't quenched the >first time they got it up to field. >2000 Ltrs of liquid Helium make quite a bit of very cold helium gas. >The fog set off the fire alarm and cleared out our 7 story building. Of >course, that was good (at least for the basement) because it was NOT >healthy to try to breath pure He (lack of O2 can be fatal). > >.... >>>> ....but that doesn't affect the fact >>>> that we have 'proof' about lightning down to that level of definition. >>> >>>'proof to the level of definition' seems to be some kind of magic phrase >>> to you. I don't see it that way. >>> >>> Either something is a definition or it is based on evidence and thus >>> subject to change as new data comes in. >> >> I think that if it is subject to change EVER, then it is not proven to >> any level. > >And that is the way it is with scientific theories. >Contrast that with DATA. Data is known but what it means may be subject to >review. > >> It can be subject to REFINEMENT maybe but not change outside the axioms >> of the 'proof'. > >It sounds like We have a slightly different concept of science. Maybe. I am prepared to accept Boyle's Law....within certain known limits. >>> >>>Care to elucidate? >> >> It supports the BaT. Check it yourself. >> Light moves at c wrt its source and everything at rest with the source. > >That is also Predicted by SR, so it can't be used to determine which is >better. but you don't realize the importance of Einstein's clock synch definition. It allowed him to do away' with an aether, even though he apparently believed one existed. > >.... >>>>>I am familiar with his thought experiment. >>>> >>>> It is NOT a thought experiment. >>>> It is a practical way of adjusting clocks. >>> >>>His was a thought experiment. >> >> No, it was and still is a practical way to synch two separated clocks. > >It might be that also. I don't think you know anything about it. > >> People like Wormley or Uncle Al will never say anything positive, just a >> few insults and web references. >> To me, that shows they have no ability to think for themselves. > >I don't like to see anyone run down by anybody. I am quite happy to poke fun at those who continually resort to insults. >>>>>> Relativity is a true religion. >>>>> >>>>>Not among true scientists. >>>> >>>> Maybe in most areas.... but not when it comes to relativity. >>>> Einstein made it so difficult to understand that not many have the >>>> courage to challenge it. >>> >>>I don't think that is why it hasn't been challenged more. >> >> It has.. but the means to disprove it have not been available unitl >> recently. > >I search for truth. Well your proposed experiment will not be sensitive enough. >> >> SRians and the whole of the astrophsics community firmly believe that >> the stars intrinsically vary periodically, for some unknown reason. >> They produce all kinds of totally unlikely reason why this might happen. > >It remains to be seen whether or not there are any likely reasons. Most are explained very simply and concisely by the BaT. > >.... 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: bz on 7 May 2005 20:47
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:mrhq71944l43nb080unu0lt832eq5mst8i(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 7 May 2005 00:43:38 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:flkn715rl3bcse1o9fl4hk881hqf9h22hl(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Fri, 6 May 2005 04:37:57 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > >>>> >>>>Observer movement affects many things. >>> >>> ...but not physical propeties of objects 1 billion LYs away. :) >> >>Of course not. > > What about 1mm away? If it is 1mm away and moving near c toward the source, there will be an effect on the physical properties. >>But the motion of the observer (wrt the distant source[we have to >>specify wrt, and it is meaningless to specify velocity wrt the light >>itself as that is alway c]) does effect the frequency/wavelength/energy >>[but not the velocity] of light being observed here, that was emitted by >>the objects 1 billion LYs away. > > How can you pretend to discuss something seriously when you have already > assumed the answer? Don't your answers usually assume that BaT is correct? >>>>Even if the speed of light were constant, there will be variations in >>>>brightness unless we are looking exactly down on the plane of the >>>>orbit of the two stars. >>> >>> If the plane is tilted, a cosine factor is applied. The critical >>> distance is increased. >> >>Does that mean that you agree or disagree? My statement is that there >>will still be variations in brightness, even if the speed of light is >>constant, in double star systems. {unless the plane of oscillation is >>exactly 90 degrees wrt the line between the pair of stars and the >>observer}. > > why should there be brightnness variations if lightspeed is c wrt the > observer? please explain. One star blocks light from the other. ..... >>>>> Run my program and see for yourself. >>>>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >>>>> It is very comprehensive and might take days to understand properly. ..... >>>>> Try eccentricity 0.5, yaw angle -90. That produces what are >>>>> categorized as 'eclipsing binaries' like Algol. Most of them aren't >>>>> eclipsing at all. The same eccentricities and +90 yaw produces >>>>> 'flare stars'. They aren't really flaring! ..... >>>>> Low eccentricities produce the very comon curves like R And. ..... >>>>> I recently included a rough indication of the way the thermal >>>>> molecular speeds would affect the brightness curves. As you know, >>>>> these speeds are very high in stars. ..... >>>>> If you run the program with 'scan on' it will take quite a few >>>>> seconds to produce the results, depending on your computer speed. ..... >>>>> One of these runs would probably be equivalent to a lifetime's work >>>>> by DeSitter. ..... >>>>How do I know when it has finished? >>> A whole page of curves appears. White lines on a black window. >>> >>>>>>If the latter, do you know for a fact that SR models can NOT >>>>>>generate similar curves? >>>>> >>>>> Definitely not. >>>> >>>>I think that there MUST be variation in brightness, even if the stars >>>>move so slowly that there is no doppler shift, so I don't believe that >>>>there would be no variation in brightness for dual stars in a SRian >>>>universe. >>> >>> The standard explanation is that the stars are varying intrinsically, >>> due to some kind of cyclical internal process. >> >>Some variable stars are probably due to some kind of oscillations inside >>the star. But any double star system will show variations in brightness >>due to one star blocking some of the light from the other star. > > These are categorized as 'eclipsing binaries'. > It turns out that the BaT predicts similar curves for single orbiting > stars in higher eccentricity orbits. There is NO eclipse, at all. Begging your pardon, but, you are looking at a set of data from variable stars. Perhap they are ALL eclipsing binaries, just as claimed. Someday we may actually observe some NON eclipsing binaries. They would 'wobble'. The question is would they still vary in brightness. ..... >>> I think this is absolutely impossible, given the constancy of >>> virtually all the observed brightness variations. >> >>Whether or not one or both of a dual star system is also a variable star >>is another question. > > The standard approach is to assume all variation to be due to either an > eclipse or an internal process. > BaT shows otherwise. ...and explains the constancy of the typically > observed periods . Wouldn't BaT predict that we would detect many more binary stars than SR would detect? So an independent estimate of the frequency of double stars could support BaT or invalidate it. I don't know if one exists that is not based on the observed frequency. >>Compare the predicted observed >>brightness with your BaT predictions. > > There are plenty of assumed 'eclipsing binaries. See the britastro > website again. > Many may not be eclipsing binaries at all. Or they may all be. That IS the question, isn't it? ..... >>> You should learn something about the subject before you comment. >> >>I know something about the subject. There will be variations in observed >>brightness. .... > > Learn some more. I have learned enought to determine that you seem to be discounting eclipsing as a cause of the variation in brightness. Even if BaT were correct, eclipsing binaries will be observed and will have an effect on the light curves. You should build that into your simulation AND allow the simulation to be run without BaT effects also. ..... >>> SR says NO brightness variation unless intrinsic. >> >>When one star blocks the light from the other, the observed brightness >>will be less. Are you calling that 'intrinsic'? I don't think that is >>what you mean by intrinsic, I think you mean the total of intrinsic >>brightness of the two stars. But they do NOT sum together to a constant >>value. >> >>Think of it as an eclipse of one sun by another. If they are the same >>size and brightness the brightness will drop to half when one exactly >>blocks our view of the other. > > learn some more. I live to learn. .... >> >>Yes, but I don't have the ability to see the what happens to the >>brightness when they don't 'bunch' because the BaT effect is removed. > > Obviously the brightness remains constant. not in eclipsing binaries. > > Of course, it is theoretically possible to have a star that is hot on > one side and cold on the other. As it rotates on its axis, ts brightness > changes with a constant period...but I doubt very much if that happens > in the real world. Our sun certainly isn't like that. You might get a rapidly rotating star with high emission from the polar regions. In fact such to exist. But that is not what I am talking about. >>> I'm giving you the bloody evidence. >>> >>> there is NO evidence in favour of SR. >> >>The SAME evidence you are using to support BaT can be used to support SR >>UNLESS you can show what EACH predicts for the observed brightness and >>that BaT produces a better prediction than SR. > > Learn some more. Hopefully we both learn some more. > Only a small proportion of variable stars is categorized as 'eclipsing'. Those are the only ones they are confident vary due to eclipsing. ..... > SR predicts constant brighthtness, except in the case of eclipsing > binaries. Happy now? Much better than 'SR doesn't predict any variation in brightness.' >>> If the companion star is large, dark but not cold, there will be a >>> daily temperature variation in the face of the star whose brightness >>> we are investigating. That complicates the predicted brightness >>> curves. I have discussed this at length previously. >> >>The star does NOT need to be large, or dark, even with two equal sized >>stars of equal brightness, there will be variations in light intensity >>as long as one star parially eclipses the other. ..... >>>>Perhaps. I know that two stars rotating around each other will produce >>>>variations in brightness even if the stars are identical in size and >>>>brightness. This will happen in SRian and BaT universes. >>> >>> That is not true. >>> You are getting confused. >>> The whole argument against the BaT was based on DeSitter's claims that >>> stars which SHOULD exhibit brightness variations don't do so. ..... >>If anything I have ever said seems like it was intended to insult or put >>you down in any way, you have my appology. > > No need. I converse with you because you appear be genuinely wanting to > inquire. I want to learn. ..... >>> I think that if it is subject to change EVER, then it is not proven to >>> any level. >>And that is the way it is with scientific theories. >>Contrast that with DATA. Data is known but what it means may be subject >>to review. >>> It can be subject to REFINEMENT maybe but not change outside the >>> axioms of the 'proof'. >>It sounds like We have a slightly different concept of science. > > Maybe. I am prepared to accept Boyle's Law....within certain known > limits. :) ..... >>> It supports the BaT. Check it yourself. >>> Light moves at c wrt its source and everything at rest with the >>> source. >> >>That is also Predicted by SR, so it can't be used to determine which is >>better. > > but you don't realize the importance of Einstein's clock synch > definition. > > It allowed him to do away' with an aether, even though he apparently > believed one existed. As long as his math does not depend on the assumption of an aether, then his articles of faith are of little interest. ..... >>>>His was a thought experiment. >>> >>> No, it was and still is a practical way to synch two separated clocks. >> >>It might be that also. > > I don't think you know anything about it. I know that neither of us can read his mind. ..... >>I don't like to see anyone run down by anybody. > > I am quite happy to poke fun at those who continually resort to insults. I try to treat others as I would want to be treated rather than as they treat others. ..... >>I search for truth. > > Well your proposed experiment will not be sensitive enough. My figures seem to indicate that it could be done, it would take some expensive equipment, however. >>> SRians and the whole of the astrophsics community firmly believe that >>> the stars intrinsically vary periodically, for some unknown reason. >>> They produce all kinds of totally unlikely reason why this might >>> happen. >> >>It remains to be seen whether or not there are any likely reasons. > > Most are explained very simply and concisely by the BaT. IF SR is invalidated while BaT is not, there will be quite a few surprised people. I won't be unhappy either way. I am in search of truth. -- 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 |