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: bz on 10 May 2005 08:24 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:0jnv71hnqhlstg2i5rl9l9ttr2vrhokk2c(a)4ax.com: > Run my program with eccentricity 0.6, yaw 90, radial 2. I don't see a 'radial'. > (click the red buton then the green. Allow the lines to go acoss th > screen about four times. Click Pause then the yellw button. no yellow button. I assume that you mean 'click here for brightness curves' which is a greenish color. The button above the 'end' button on the next page is black on black. I just guessed that it takes me back, and it did. > I hope the > colours are the same on your computer.) NOT. > > 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. I see the curves. I don't know what the math is. I do see that in both cases, looking at both stars and just the outer star gives identical results. This seems 'wrong'. -- 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: bz on 10 May 2005 11:05 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:0jnv71hnqhlstg2i5rl9l9ttr2vrhokk2c(a)4ax.com: > 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? Each object will absorb photons with an energy/wavelength/frequency that depends on that objects relative motion toward/away from the source. The emitting object is not affected (unless you believe in -t). ...... >>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. within that 'critical distance range' there should be a higher frequency of variable stars than outside that 'critical range'. Right????? By your statements, outside that range, BaT variables will not be variable. So within that range[whatever it is], there should be MORE variables. >>>>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. Good. That was case 2 above. Did you think of any other possibilities? > Incidentally, ALL stars are in some kind of orbit around something. Yes but we are talking about repeated doppler shift variations showing orbit around some nearby body. One could just as easily and accurately say that ALL stars are variables, to some extent. Our sun is certainly such a variable star. The variations are small but there is clearly an 11 year cycle involved and perhaps other longer cycles. > Often the orbit will involve many stars. > Ternary systems are of interest. Some probable ones can be seen at the > britastro website. Ok, but that doesn't answer the question. BaT binary variables should show up within a certain region of space, outside that region, only other variables will be variable, right? >>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. I think we can assume orbital parameters are distributed uniformly throughout space. At least that should be our assumption until we find data that refutes it. What are the '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. So within a 5000 LY sphere, we should see more variable stars per unit volume than outside that sphere? > For htat matter, nor would it expect to see all that many variables > within that distance. The frequencies should vary with distance in a predictable way if BaT is a cause of observed variability. ..... >>>>> 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. Assertion does not make it true. Assertions need to be tested against predictions. Does BaT predict increased number of variable stars within 5000 LY? ..... >>> 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. But not all show measurable orbital motion. Under BaT not all would display variability due to BaT. ..... > 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... They can't fly apart, they keep falling toward each other. > but gravity apparently holds them together. Some stars have even been observed being torn apart by the tidal forces IIRC. ..... > 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 and I agree with what you are now saying except the word 'fact'. The fact is that we have data and theories. Data is fact. Theory is theory. "SR does not accommodate the theory that c-v ...." would be a true statement. Once you insert the word 'fact' in that sentence, you step out of science and into religion. >>>>>>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. That remains to be seen. But if you can show that there is a sphere of BaT variables around us, extending out to the 'critical distance' and that past that distance the only variables seen are those that are eclipsing or intrinsic, then I think you may have something. That distribution would be critical evidence for BaT. > see: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/algol.html interesting. Nothing about BaT or supporting Bat, however. > or: http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/algol.html Also interesting, but nothing supporting BaT seen there either. BTW, in comparing the two algol photons on that page, I may have found a comet or asteroid. In the right hand picture there is a small streak near horizontal center, 3/4 way to bottom vertically. Similar length streak in left photo, near left corner, same distance from bottom. ..... >>> 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. > ..... > > Look at the curves I told you to produce then compare them with Algol. I will do so. I suggest you start looking at the radial distance distribution of variables and see if the data supports BaT. ..... >>>>> 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. By 'normal' I meant 'BaT' variable. Eclipsing binaries should ALSO show BaT variability IF they are within the 'critical distance' range, right? >>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. will do. >>>>> 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. But the fundamental assumptions are NOT based on the existance of an aether. Just because his math is identical to Newton's (at low velocities) does not imply his math is based on Newton's assumptions. >>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? IF they are both IDENTICAL, then they both explain the data equally well. Occams razor says pick the simpler one and test it. ..... >>>>>>>>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. Yep. If you plug v into his equations and v is much smaller than c, you find that v is unimportant. It only becomes significant when v is a significant portion of c. ..... ..... >>>>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. Lets see. BaT is not observable on earth because anything nearby provides a kind of EM reference frame. BaT is not observable wrt photons emitted from our sun because of rapid loss of velocity in excess of c to the gas molecules. Bat is not observable wrt photons emitted from very distant stars because of the absorbtion, reemission by gas molecules between there and here. Bat is not observable wrt photons emitted by our space probes because they are too close for the effects to show up. By george, it is beginning to look like BaT is just not going to be observable, unless you can show that some of the variable stars within the 5000 LY sphere around earth exhibit some effect that can ONLY be explained by BaT. ..... >>> 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. I did not say it was. >>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. So say you, but you have yet to provide me with convincing evidence, and I have been trying to help you do so. -- 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: bz on 11 May 2005 05:43 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:0jnv71hnqhlstg2i5rl9l9ttr2vrhokk2c(a)4ax.com: > 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? Each object will absorb photons with an energy/wavelength/frequency that depends on that objects relative motion toward/away from the source. The emitting object is not affected (unless you believe in -t). ...... >>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. withing that 'critical distance range' there should be a higher frequency of variable stars than outside that 'critical range'. Right? Because outside that range, BaT variables will not be variable. So within that range[whatever it is], there should be MORE variables. >>>>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. Ok, but that doesn't answer the question. BaT variables should show up within a certain region of space, outside that region, only other variables will be variable, right? >>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. Assume orbital parameters are distributed uniformly throughout space. What are the '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. The frequencies should vary with distance in a predictable way if BaT is the cause of the variability. ..... >>>>> 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. > ..... >> >>> 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. But not all show measurable orbital motion. Under BaT not all would display variability due to BaT. >>> 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. > >> ..... > 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... They can't fly apart, they keep falling toward each other. > but gravity apparently holds them together. Some stars have even been observed being torn apart by the tidal forces IIRC. ..... ..... > 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 and I agree with what you are now saying except the word 'fact'. The fact is that we have data and theories. Data is fact. Theory is theory. "SR does not accommodate the theory that c-v ...." >>>>>>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. That remains to be seen. But if you can show that there is a sphere of BaT variables around us, extending out to the 'critical distance' and that past that distance the only variables seen are those that are eclipsing or intrinsic, then I think you may have something. That distribution would be critical evidence for BaT. > see: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/algol.html > or: http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/algol.html ..... >>> 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. > ..... > > Look at the curves I told you to produce then compare them with Algol. I will do so. I suggest you start looking at the radial distance distribution of variables and see if the data supports BaT. ..... >>>>> 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. By normal I meant 'BaT' variable. Eclipsing binaries should ALSO show BaT variability IF they are within the 'critical distance' range, right? >>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. will do. done. I don't see anything that rules out SR in the algol curve. I don't see the 'minor eclipse' in your program's data. Perhaps I am not putting in all the needed parameters. I still can't find 'radial' ..... >>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. > ..... > Well what is your reason for SR maths being identical to LET maths? > Under the right conditions, SR and GR both reduce to Newtons math. It is not unreasonable for SR and LET to use similar math. Occams razor says that when two theories explain all observations equally well, choose the simpler. Do both explain ALL observations equally well? >> >>.... >>>>>>>>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. yep. > >> >>.... >>>>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. Does BaT include something that makes it disappear when 'a kind of EM reference frame' exists or is that something you are adding to BaT to explain why BaT has never been observed? ..... >>>>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. Einstein's theories have contributed greatly to science. > >> >>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. Those 'redherrings' are testing the predictions of SR. > > Astrophysics is completely off the rails because of its belief that all > starlight travels to Earth at c. How does a belief that seems consistent with the data take us 'off the rails?' ..... -- 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: h2jd923j3902u on 12 May 2005 09:59 hi bilge can DLS be done by using a 1G scop and correlation algorithm be done in software?
From: h2jd923j3902u on 12 May 2005 10:00
your webpage background sucks |