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: Paul B. Andersen on 8 May 2005 17:30 Henri Wilson wrote: > Particles become more difficult to accelerate as their speed increases wrt the > accelerating fields. That is because the particles themselves surround > themselves with a 'reverse field bubble' which reduces the effective 'driving > field'. :-) Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 8 May 2005 21:19 On Sun, 8 May 2005 00:47:04 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:mrhq71944l43nb080unu0lt832eq5mst8i(a)4ax.com: > >>>> ...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. So if TWO objects 1mm away are moving at different speeds, how is the other object affected? > >>>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? It assumes light moves at c wrt its source, something SRians agree with. >> why should there be brightnness variations if lightspeed is c wrt the >> observer? please explain. > >One star blocks light from the other. You are talking about eclipsing binaties. >.... >>>>>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. No they are NOT all eclipsing binaries. Unless you learn something about this subject, I will cease his conversation. > >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? No > >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. Do you mean the proportion of stars in a certain region that are variables? > >>>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? They are definitely NOT all eclipsing binaries. > >.... >>>> 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. You don't understand the subject at all. Of course SOME are eclipsing. However the same type of curve, which has a clear discontinuity as the eclipe begins, can be produced by ONE orbiting star. The discontiuity occurs as the curvature flips from + to -. I didn't believe it myself until I printed out thousands of numbers and analysed just what is happening. > >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. I will not take any further part in this discusion until you read something about the subject. Try the britastro website. >.... >>>> 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. slowly, apparently. > >... >>> >>>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 not. > >> >> 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. SRians believe that similar processes are responsible for all except eclipsing binaries. > >>>> 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. But many if not most of those are not actually eclipsing. It is a feature of the BaT prediction. > >.... >> SR predicts constant brighthtness, except in the case of eclipsing >> binaries. Happy now? > >Much better than 'SR doesn't predict any variation in brightness.' Eclipsing binaries are of little interest > >>>> 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. but it does, indirectly. > >.... >>>>>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. You can read his 1905 paper. > >.... >>>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. Very noble...but it doesn't always bring the desired response. > >.... >>>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. Yes...and on the moon. > >>>> 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. Heads will roll! but there will be quite a few who are not surprised , too. > >I won't be unhappy either way. >I am in search of truth. 100 years of Einsteiniana hasn't advanced scientific knowledge at all. 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 8 May 2005 22:04 On Sun, 08 May 2005 23:30:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> Particles become more difficult to accelerate as their speed increases wrt the >> accelerating fields. That is because the particles themselves surround >> themselves with a 'reverse field bubble' which reduces the effective 'driving >> field'. > >:-) Typical back emf scenario. > >Paul 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 8 May 2005 22:34 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:maet71dlji7pj4ilog8oifpfnoqr6fjr0t(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 8 May 2005 00:47:04 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:mrhq71944l43nb080unu0lt832eq5mst8i(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>> ...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. > > So if TWO objects 1mm away are moving at different speeds, how is the > other object affected? There is about to be a collision since it is 1mm away and moving toward the other object. Both objects will be effected by the collision taking place at near c relative velocities. >>>>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? > > It assumes light moves at c wrt its source, something SRians agree with. Your answers appear to assume more than that. Don't your answers usually assume that BaT is correct? >>> why should there be brightnness variations if lightspeed is c wrt the >>> observer? please explain. >>One star blocks light from the other. > You are talking about eclipsing binaties. Exactly right. ..... >>>>>>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. >>>>> ...... Let me check my logic. Under SR the only variables (aside from pulsing stars) are eclipsing binaries. Under Bat those are all variable, plus any other double star system [within certain range constraints] will ALSO be variable. So, under BaT, we should detect many more variable star systems than under SR. Right? >>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. > > Do you mean the proportion of stars in a certain region that are > variables? there are single stars that are not variable there are single stars that are variable. there are binary stars that are not variable there are binary stars that are variable there are binary stars that are eclipsing variables there may be binary stars that are variable but not eclipsing can you think of any other possiblities? The ratio of binary stars that are variable but not eclipsing should, by BaT and what you have said about it, show a strong function of distance from the earth. This is because you seem to indicate that once the binary stars are too far away, the BaT shifts average out to a constant brightness. ..... >>> Many may not be eclipsing binaries at all. >> >>Or they may all be. That IS the question, isn't it? > > They are definitely NOT all eclipsing binaries. Some may be 'normal variable stars' in a binary system. Some may be BaT variables [if such an effect exists]. >>>>> 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. > > You don't understand the subject at all. Explain it to me. > Of course SOME are eclipsing. > However the same type of curve, which has a clear discontinuity as the > eclipe begins, can be produced by ONE orbiting star. For a star to be orbiting, it must orbit something, right? > The discontiuity > occurs as the curvature flips from + to -. > > I didn't believe it myself until I printed out thousands of numbers and > analysed just what is happening. Make it clear to me. >>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. > > I will not take any further part in this discusion until you read > something about the subject. Try the britastro website. What would you like for me to read on their web site? I have already looked at the site and 'obviously' I have missed something that you think is important 'common knowledge' that everyone should know before they are permitted to discuss things with you. So exactly what is it you want me to know? ..... >>>>> SR says NO brightness variation unless intrinsic. leaving out entirely eclipsing binaries. >>>> >>>>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. > > slowly, apparently. I learn as rapidly as knowledge is presented. It took several days to get you to say that SR allowed for variable stars. You kept saying the brightness remained constant. >>>>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 not. Why did you keep saying brightness remains constant until I pointed out that eclipsing binaries exist? ..... > > SRians believe that similar processes are responsible for all except > eclipsing binaries. That makes some sense. ...... >>> Only a small proportion of variable stars is categorized as >>> 'eclipsing'. >> >>Those are the only ones they are confident vary due to eclipsing. > > But many if not most of those are not actually eclipsing. > It is a feature of the BaT prediction. It is YOUR claim that they are not actually eclipsing. You have yet to demonstrate why you think that. In fact you kept saying that SR said there would be no variations in brightness, totally ignoring eclipsing binaries. ..... >>> SR predicts constant brighthtness, except in the case of eclipsing >>> binaries. Happy now? >> >>Much better than 'SR doesn't predict any variation in brightness.' > > Eclipsing binaries are of little interest They are really the most interesting because in BaT, eclipsing binaries are just a special case of 'normal' variable binary stars. In cases where the eclipse is partial and only a small proportion of the far star is covered by the near star, these should fit into the set of curves with the plane of the orbit approaching edge on toward us. Those with total eclipses should also fit into that set of curves, with a drop in brightness during the eclipse. ..... >>> 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. > > but it does, indirectly. Unless it is an assumption of his math, it is NOT important. The math must be invalid if aether does not exist for it to be important. Absent such an assumption arguing against SR because it is based on aether is wrong. It is like the farmer that wouldn't lend his rope to his neighbor. When the neighbor asked why, the farmer said 'I need the rope to hold store milk'. The neighbor said "you can't use a rope to store milk." And the farmer said "when you don't want to do something, any reason will do." ..... >>>>>>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. > > You can read his 1905 paper. I have read his 1905 papers. I see a thought experiment with clocks moving at high relative velocities that could never be reached in 1905. ..... >>I try to treat others as I would want to be treated rather than as they >>treat others. > > Very noble...but it doesn't always bring the desired response. Of course not. But, unless one likes to exchange insults, it has a better chance of getting a more desireable response than insults do. ..... >>> 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. > > Yes...and on the moon. Perhaps. Perhaps just a few hours in a large vacuum chamber. ..... >>IF SR is invalidated while BaT is not, there will be quite a few >>surprised people. > > Heads will roll! Some heads will shake, some eyes will roll. > but there will be quite a few who are not surprised , too. >>I won't be unhappy either way. >>I am in search of truth. > > 100 years of Einsteiniana hasn't advanced scientific knowledge at all. Science has advanced tremendously in the last 100 years. Many of those advances are directly or indirectly based upon SR and the photoelectric effect. If you argued that the Aristotelian approach to science kept mankind in ignorance for hundreds of years, I would agree with you on that. -- 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 9 May 2005 19:13
On Mon, 9 May 2005 02:34:52 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:maet71dlji7pj4ilog8oifpfnoqr6fjr0t(a)4ax.com: > >>>If it is 1mm away and moving near c toward the source, there will be an >>>effect on the physical properties. >> >> So if TWO objects 1mm away are moving at different speeds, how is the >> other object affected? > >There is about to be a collision since it is 1mm away and moving toward the >other object. Both objects will be effected by the collision taking place >at near c relative velocities. OK, if TWO objects 1LY away are moving at different speeds, how is the other object affected? > >>>>>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? >> >> It assumes light moves at c wrt its source, something SRians agree with. > >Your answers appear to assume more than that. > >Don't your answers usually assume that BaT is correct? > >>>> why should there be brightnness variations if lightspeed is c wrt the >>>> observer? please explain. >>>One star blocks light from the other. >> You are talking about eclipsing binaties. > >Exactly right. > >>>>>>>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. >>>>>> >..... >Let me check my logic. > >Under SR the only variables (aside from pulsing stars) are eclipsing >binaries. > >Under Bat those are all variable, plus any other double star system [within >certain range constraints] will ALSO be variable. > >So, under BaT, we should detect many more variable star systems than under >SR. Right? Wrong. The conditions will simply not be right in the case of the majority of stars. They will not have the right orbit parameters nor will they lie at anywhere near the critical distance. > >>>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. >> >> Do you mean the proportion of stars in a certain region that are >> variables? > >there are single stars that are not variable >there are single stars that are variable. >there are binary stars that are not variable >there are binary stars that are variable > there are binary stars that are eclipsing variables > there may be binary stars that are variable but not eclipsing >can you think of any other possiblities? There can easily be single stars that are '''intrinsically''' variable. I have never claimed otherwise. Incidentally, ALL stars are in some kind of orbit around something. Often the orbit will involve many stars. Ternary systems are of interest. Some probable ones can be seen at the britastro website. > >The ratio of binary stars that are variable but not eclipsing should, by >BaT and what you have said about it, show a strong function of distance >from the earth. No No No! It all depends on the orbit parameters.... and a few other things. > >This is because you seem to indicate that once the binary stars are too far >away, the BaT shifts average out to a constant brightness. Our galaxy is about 50,000 LYs across and we are near one edge. Most stars would be more than 5000 LY away from us. The BaT would not expect to see many variables beyond that kind of distance. For htat matter, nor would it expect to see all that many variables within that distance. > >.... >>>> Many may not be eclipsing binaries at all. >>> >>>Or they may all be. That IS the question, isn't it? >> >> They are definitely NOT all eclipsing binaries. > >Some may be 'normal variable stars' in a binary system. >Some may be BaT variables [if such an effect exists]. THey do. > >>>>>> 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. >> >> You don't understand the subject at all. > >Explain it to me. I'm not here to teach you anything except the BaT. > >> Of course SOME are eclipsing. >> However the same type of curve, which has a clear discontinuity as the >> eclipe begins, can be produced by ONE orbiting star. > >For a star to be orbiting, it must orbit something, right? Everything orbits something. > >> The discontiuity >> occurs as the curvature flips from + to -. >> >> I didn't believe it myself until I printed out thousands of numbers and >> analysed just what is happening. > >Make it clear to me. Run my program with eccentricity 0.6, yaw 90, radial 2. (click the red buton then the green. Allow the lines to go acoss th screen about four times. Click Pause then the yellw button. I hope the colours are the same on your computer.) Then change yaw to -90. One curve resembles that of a flare star, the other of an eclipsing binary. The point I was trying to make is that the abrupt change in curvature is real. > >>>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. >> >> I will not take any further part in this discusion until you read >> something about the subject. Try the britastro website. > >What would you like for me to read on their web site? I have already looked >at the site and 'obviously' I have missed something that you think is >important 'common knowledge' that everyone should know before they are >permitted to discuss things with you. So exactly what is it you want me to >know? OK. I can see you have learnt a little already. Not many variable stars are eclipsing binaries. The chances of an eclipse are pretty small, after all. Some binaries are very close together and orbit at very high rates, eg, once every four days. One would think they would fly apart...but gravity apparently holds them together. > >.... >>>>>> SR says NO brightness variation unless intrinsic. > >leaving out entirely eclipsing binaries. which is only a small proportion.... >>>> >>>> learn some more. >>> >>>I live to learn. >> >> slowly, apparently. > >I learn as rapidly as knowledge is presented. It took several days to get >you to say that SR allowed for variable stars. You kept saying the >brightness remained constant. SR does not accommodate the fact that c-v light from receding parts of the orbit is overtaken by faster c+v light. SR assumes star brightness variation is due to either eclipses or intrinsic pulsations. Got it now? > >>>>>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 not. > >Why did you keep saying brightness remains constant until I pointed out >that eclipsing binaries exist? The brightness of each member of an eclipsing binary remains constant. The curve of a star like Algol should be flat on top. It isn't. The BaT explains why. SR is wrong. see: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/algol.html or: http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/algol.html > >.... >> >> SRians believe that similar processes are responsible for all except >> eclipsing binaries. > >That makes some sense. > >..... >>>> Only a small proportion of variable stars is categorized as >>>> 'eclipsing'. >>> >>>Those are the only ones they are confident vary due to eclipsing. >> >> But many if not most of those are not actually eclipsing. >> It is a feature of the BaT prediction. > >It is YOUR claim that they are not actually eclipsing. I said some of them are, many probably are not. > >You have yet to demonstrate why you think that. In fact you kept saying >that SR said there would be no variations in brightness, totally ignoring >eclipsing binaries. Look at the curves I told you to produce then compare them with Algol. > >.... >>>> SR predicts constant brighthtness, except in the case of eclipsing >>>> binaries. Happy now? >>> >>>Much better than 'SR doesn't predict any variation in brightness.' >> >> Eclipsing binaries are of little interest > >They are really the most interesting because in BaT, eclipsing binaries are >just a special case of 'normal' variable binary stars. They MIGHT BE. They could also be genuinely eclipsing. Spectrographic data wold probably reveal which. > >In cases where the eclipse is partial and only a small proportion of the >far star is covered by the near star, these should fit into the set of >curves with the plane of the orbit approaching edge on toward us. > >Those with total eclipses should also fit into that set of curves, with a >drop in brightness during the eclipse. See the algol curve. > >.... >>>> 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. >> >> but it does, indirectly. > >Unless it is an assumption of his math, it is NOT important. The math must >be invalid if aether does not exist for it to be important. > >Absent such an assumption arguing against SR because it is based on aether >is wrong. SR presumes that each observer has his own personal 'Absolute FoR'. That makes his logic and maths identical to that of aether theory. > >It is like the farmer that wouldn't lend his rope to his neighbor. >When the neighbor asked why, the farmer said 'I need the rope to hold store >milk'. The neighbor said "you can't use a rope to store milk." >And the farmer said "when you don't want to do something, any reason will >do." Well what is your reason for SR maths being identical to LET maths? > >.... >>>>>>>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. >> >> You can read his 1905 paper. > >I have read his 1905 papers. >I see a thought experiment with clocks moving at high relative velocities >that could never be reached in 1905. That's a new one. Did you read his clock synch deinition. > >.... >>>I try to treat others as I would want to be treated rather than as they >>>treat others. >> >> Very noble...but it doesn't always bring the desired response. > >Of course not. But, unless one likes to exchange insults, it has a better >chance of getting a more desireable response than insults do. > >.... >>>> 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. >> >> Yes...and on the moon. > >Perhaps. Perhaps just a few hours in a large vacuum chamber. You could not assume te vacuum was sufficiently low. Also the walls might provide a kind of EM reference frame. > >.... >>>IF SR is invalidated while BaT is not, there will be quite a few >>>surprised people. >> >> Heads will roll! > >Some heads will shake, some eyes will roll. > >> but there will be quite a few who are not surprised , too. > >>>I won't be unhappy either way. >>>I am in search of truth. >> >> 100 years of Einsteiniana hasn't advanced scientific knowledge at all. > >Science has advanced tremendously in the last 100 years. Many of those >advances are directly or indirectly based upon SR and the photoelectric >effect. The PE effect is not dependent on SR. > >If you argued that the Aristotelian approach to science kept mankind in >ignorance for hundreds of years, I would agree with you on that. Similarly SR has sidetracked physics inro chasing redherrings. Astrophysics is completely off the rails because of its belief that all starlight travels to Earth at c. 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. |