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 13 May 2005 01:02 On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:24:24 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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'. velocity. > >> (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. Should be yellow. >The button above the 'end' button on the next page is black on black. Should be white on black. >I just guessed that it takes me back, and it did. I don't know what is causing this colour problem. Text should be quite clear. I will have to standardize all the colours somehow. > >> 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'. That is because only one star is involved. The box, Vinner/Vouter is set to zero. If you set the ratio to something other than zero you will see the effect of te second star. 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: Bilge on 13 May 2005 17:20 h2jd923j3902u(a)yahoo.com: >hi bilge > >can DLS be done by using a 1G scop and correlation algorithm be >done in software? I have no idea what DLS means nor what 1G scop means.
From: Henri Wilson on 14 May 2005 04:49 On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:05:34 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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> >> >> 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). Naturally. >> >> 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????? No. Each star has its own critical distance. > >By your statements, outside that range, BaT variables will not be variable. > >So within that range[whatever it is], there should be MORE variables. NO. > >>>> 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. A star with a long period orbit can still exhibit brightness variation. > >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. THat kind of variation is usually very small. > >> 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? No. I understand your thinking but you are missing the point somewhat. Stars orbit radii can have a very large range. So can the peripheral velocities. But there is no simple relationship between them since the central star can be any size....and 'GM'. Given a random distribution of star masses, there might be an inverse relationship between critical distance and orbital velocity. So I would suspect that on average, slower stars with longer periods would show brightness peaks at longer distances...but I wouldn't be certain. > >>>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'? Day night temperature variation, amount of gas around the stars, molecular speed distribution, extinction as the light passes through space, eccentricity. I suppose you could argue that these are also distributed randomly. > >>>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? That could be true but I would not say definitely. It depends to a large extent on orbit period distribution. > >> 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. No it isn't as simple as that. If you take a sample of stars with orbit periods between say 3 months and 3 years and if you know each one's maximum orbit speed through its doppler shift, you might find some kind of relationship with distance. I'll think about that. > >.... >>>>>> 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? I shouldn't think so but then I wouldn't expect to see many beyond that becasue multiple imagery is likely to dominate the whole process. There is another complication. If a binary pair is itself obiting another larger body such as a galactic centre, a phenomenon I call 'time compression' can occur. A bloke called Sekerin pointed this out before did,apparently. The effect is to compress all the events occuring at the binary pair into a smaller time interval...so the observed period may be considerably shorter than the true one. My program actually includes that. > >.... >>>> 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. Very true. > >.... >> 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. Sorry, I meant each one would be likely to fly apart maybe because of tidal stresses. > >> but gravity apparently holds them together. > >Some stars have even been observed being torn apart by the tidal forces IIRC. I should think that very likely. > >.... >> 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. Well to me it is a pretty obvious 'fact' that the hare will eventually catch the tortoise every time. > >>>>>>>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. No it is definitely not that simple. I think there is a connection between the luminosity of so-called Miras and period of variation. > >> see: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/algol.html > >interesting. Nothing about BaT or supporting Bat, however. No but the BaT predicts such curves. SR says they should be flat on top. > >> 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. Could be. > >.... > >>>> 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. I'll think about that. > >.... >>>>>> 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? Yes. Good point. > >>>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. >> >> 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. The first sentence in Einstein's 1905 paper reads, "let us take a system of coordinates in which the laws of Newton hold good." > >>>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. If any prediction of SR is correct, then I would immediately start looking for a 'local' aether. SR is based on false logic and blatantly wrong assumptions. A light beam that is vertical in one frame does NOT appear diagonal in another. It remains vertical. >> >> 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. Don't be silly. The time differences are likely to be of the order of 10^-9 secs or less. You obviously didn't understand the significance. Have a look at the aether case. The times each way are L/(c+v) and L/(c-v) . Einstein simply adjusts his clocks so that these times are equal and the aether quietly goes away....or does it?. >.... >.... >>>>>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. Correction: both 'in excess of' and 'less than'. >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. Yes. >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. All known variable stars are in our galaxy...maybe 50000 LYs across. Most are with about 5000LYs because they are the ones most easy to see. Many better known ones are around 50-100 LYs. > >.... >>>> 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. You seem to think I am the only person who has realised the error. There is a fellow called Robert Fritzius in the US right now who will tell you a lot more about it that I can. Look him up on the web. I emailed him, recently. 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 14 May 2005 08:54 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:78cb819oj23dsgien7dfcjltpfjfhgc46j(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 10 May 2005 15:05:34 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>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> > >>> >>> 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). > > Naturally. You agreed? >>> 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????? > > No. Each star has its own critical distance. A star is either within critical distance of earth or outside it, right? A star is either observed to be variable or not, right? The variability is predicted or not predicted to be due to BaT, right? The distribution of BaT predicted variables should be dependent on distance from earth, and should be different from the distribution of variables predicted by SR. The observations should be compared with the predictions. >>By your statements, outside that range, BaT variables will not be >>variable. >> >>So within that range[whatever it is], there should be MORE variables. > > NO. Why not? If BaT does not produce predictions that are different from SR/GRthe there is no reason to select BaT over SR. There is ALSO no reason to say that the progress of science has been held back by SR. >>>>> 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. > > A star with a long period orbit can still exhibit brightness variation. Of course. But we won't know it has a companion for quite some time. >>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. > > THat kind of variation is usually very small. For our star and those similar to it, that appears to be true. >>> 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? > > No. I understand your thinking but you are missing the point somewhat. > Stars orbit radii can have a very large range. So can the peripheral > velocities. But there is no simple relationship between them since the > central star can be any size....and 'GM'. > > Given a random distribution of star masses, there might be an inverse > relationship between critical distance and orbital velocity. So I would > suspect that on average, slower stars with longer periods would show > brightness peaks at longer distances...but I wouldn't be certain. You have equations. You are using them in your program. You can do montecarlo simulations and find out. If I knew what equations your program was using, I might be able to do montecarlo simulations. >>>>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'? > > Day night temperature variation, amount of gas around the stars, > molecular speed distribution, extinction as the light passes through > space, eccentricity. > > I suppose you could argue that these are also distributed randomly. I can't show that they are NOT randomly distributed. >>>>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? > > That could be true but I would not say definitely. > It depends to a large extent on orbit period distribution. We need to develop TESTABLE predictions. >>> 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. > > No it isn't as simple as that. > > If you take a sample of stars with orbit periods between say 3 months > and 3 years and if you know each one's maximum orbit speed through its > doppler shift, you might find some kind of relationship with distance. > > I'll think about that. That is exactly what I am suggesting that you do. >>>>>>> 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? > > I shouldn't think so but then I wouldn't expect to see many beyond that > becasue multiple imagery is likely to dominate the whole process. Multiple imagery has not yet been observed to be associated with variable stars. Gravity lens effect has been predicted to produce multiple images. They have observed multiple images due to gravity lens effect. > There is another complication. > If a binary pair is itself obiting another larger body such as a > galactic centre, a phenomenon I call 'time compression' can occur. A > bloke called Sekerin pointed this out before did,apparently. > The effect is to compress all the events occuring at the binary pair > into a smaller time interval...so the observed period may be > considerably shorter than the true one. > My program actually includes that. That sounds a lot like what SR/GR predict under similar circumstances. >>>>> 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. > > Very true. > >> ..... >>> 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. > > Well to me it is a pretty obvious 'fact' that the hare will eventually > catch the tortoise every time. Yes. But tortoises and hares are observable. c'=c+/-v photons have never been observed AFAWK. By the way, I have a few turtles in my back yard. They can move MUCH faster than you would think. >>>>>>>>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. > > No it is definitely not that simple. > > I think there is a connection between the luminosity of so-called Miras > and period of variation. > >> >>> see: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/algol.html >> >>interesting. Nothing about BaT or supporting Bat, however. > > No but the BaT predicts such curves. SR says they should be flat on top. I don't think that is correct. We would need to test that statement. >>> 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. > > Could be. Unfortunately, the pictures were taken several years apart according to the web page author. With the same camera, but from different locations. Too bad, it would be nice to discover [even if someone else already had done so] an asteroid. He is going to check on the original photos. I suppose it is still possible that a phase-locked orbital body could show up in pictures several years apart, but from the exposure time streak length, it is clear that with pictures several year apart, the asteroid could not have made both streaks in a single orbit. ..... ..... >>I will do so. I suggest you start looking at the radial distance >>distribution of variables and see if the data supports BaT. > > I'll think about that. ..... >>By 'normal' I meant 'BaT' variable. Eclipsing binaries should ALSO show >>BaT variability IF they are within the 'critical distance' range, right? > > Yes. Good point. > >> >>>>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. > >>> >>> 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. > > The first sentence in Einstein's 1905 paper reads, "let us take a system > of coordinates in which the laws of Newton hold good." Right. Absent such an assertion by the author, any such assumption on our part would be unwarranted. ..... >>> 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. > > If any prediction of SR is correct, then I would immediately start > looking for a 'local' aether. > SR is based on false logic and blatantly wrong assumptions. > A light beam that is vertical in one frame does NOT appear diagonal in > another. It remains vertical. If you can prove your assertion, you will have invalidated SR. Go for it! A ball thrown from one person to another while both are riding on a merry- go-round travels in a straight line [as seen by an observer that is standing beside the merry-go-round] but to the observers ON the merry-go- round, the path of the ball appears to be curved. >>> 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. > > Don't be silly. > The time differences are likely to be of the order of 10^-9 secs or > less. As I said, it only becomes significant when v is a significant portion of c. > You obviously didn't understand the significance. Clue me. > Have a look at the aether case. The times each way are L/(c+v) and > L/(c-v) . Einstein simply adjusts his clocks so that these times are > equal and the aether quietly goes away....or does it?. He doesn't assume an aether. To the contrary, he assumes there is no stationary aether or absolute frame of reference. ..... >>>>>>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. > > Correction: both 'in excess of' and 'less than'. you can't lose velocity if the photons are going less than c if you intend to reach c. You must c/loss/loss or gain/ if you want to change the sentence to include slow photons. >>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. > > Yes. > >>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. > > All known variable stars are in our galaxy...maybe 50000 LYs across. > Most are with about 5000LYs because they are the ones most easy to see. > Many better known ones are around 50-100 LYs. Good of you to point out that the data may be biased by our ability to observe. That can, of course, be taken into account. ..... >>>>> 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. > > You seem to think I am the only person who has realised the error. > There is a fellow called Robert Fritzius in the US right now who will > tell you a lot more about it that I can. Look him up on the web. I > emailed him, recently. Perhaps he has some evidence to support his theory. -- 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 15 May 2005 20:05
On Sat, 14 May 2005 12:54:02 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:78cb819oj23dsgien7dfcjltpfjfhgc46j(a)4ax.com: > >>>> >>>> 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). >> >> Naturally. > >You agreed? The energy and 'frequency' of an absorbed photon depends on it speed relative to the target. Naturally, the source is not affected in any way. How could it be (unless you believe in -t ...and a few other myths)? >>>within that 'critical distance range' there should be a higher frequency >>>of variable stars than outside that 'critical range'. Right????? >> >> No. Each star has its own critical distance. > >A star is either within critical distance of earth or outside it, right? You don't get it. There is no SINGLE critical distance. Each star has a different one. >A star is either observed to be variable or not, right? >The variability is predicted or not predicted to be due to BaT, right? > >The distribution of BaT predicted variables should be dependent on distance >from earth, and should be different from the distribution of variables >predicted by SR. The observations should be compared with the predictions. Like I said, there might be a statistically based relationship there somewhere. I'll think about it...but it isn't as straightforward as you are making out. >>> >>>> 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. >> >> A star with a long period orbit can still exhibit brightness variation. > >Of course. But we won't know it has a companion for quite some time. If we know the star's distance, we can learn about its companion, dark or otherwise, from the brightness variation curve. >>>BaT binary variables should show up within a certain region of space, >>>outside that region, only other variables will be variable, right? >> >> No. I understand your thinking but you are missing the point somewhat. >> Stars orbit radii can have a very large range. So can the peripheral >> velocities. But there is no simple relationship between them since the >> central star can be any size....and 'GM'. >> >> Given a random distribution of star masses, there might be an inverse >> relationship between critical distance and orbital velocity. So I would >> suspect that on average, slower stars with longer periods would show >> brightness peaks at longer distances...but I wouldn't be certain. > >You have equations. You are using them in your program. You can do >montecarlo simulations and find out. If I knew what equations your program >was using, I might be able to do montecarlo simulations. The program works like this. Let an orbiting star emit identical flashes of light at a fixed rate, eg 20000 per orbit. Their speed in any direction is c+((v.cos(x) where x is the instantaneous angle between the star's velocity vector and the observer. At a particular distance, the rate at which pulses arrive is thus an indication of the star's apparent brightness. It turns out that the pulses from the 'concave' half of the orbit bunch together whilst those from the other half move apart. Note: it was previously argued that only light from the approaching part of the orbit would contribute to brightness increase. This is not so. >>>So within a 5000 LY sphere, we should see more variable stars per unit >>>volume than outside that sphere? >> >> That could be true but I would not say definitely. >> It depends to a large extent on orbit period distribution. > >We need to develop TESTABLE predictions. That might be possible. > >>>> 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. >> >> No it isn't as simple as that. >> >> If you take a sample of stars with orbit periods between say 3 months >> and 3 years and if you know each one's maximum orbit speed through its >> doppler shift, you might find some kind of relationship with distance. >> >> I'll think about that. > >That is exactly what I am suggesting that you do. I have about fifty other projects going at present. >>>Assertion does not make it true. Assertions need to be tested against >>>predictions. >>> >>>Does BaT predict increased number of variable stars within 5000 LY? >> >> I shouldn't think so but then I wouldn't expect to see many beyond that >> becasue multiple imagery is likely to dominate the whole process. > >Multiple imagery has not yet been observed to be associated with variable >stars. Only because they are always much too far away. > >Gravity lens effect has been predicted to produce multiple images. They >have observed multiple images due to gravity lens effect. They will use any excuse. > >> There is another complication. >> If a binary pair is itself obiting another larger body such as a >> galactic centre, a phenomenon I call 'time compression' can occur. A >> bloke called Sekerin pointed this out before did,apparently. >> The effect is to compress all the events occuring at the binary pair >> into a smaller time interval...so the observed period may be >> considerably shorter than the true one. >> My program actually includes that. > >That sounds a lot like what SR/GR predict under similar circumstances. No. Not related. >>>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. >> >> Well to me it is a pretty obvious 'fact' that the hare will eventually >> catch the tortoise every time. > >Yes. But tortoises and hares are observable. c'=c+/-v photons have never >been observed AFAWK. By the way, I have a few turtles in my back yard. They >can move MUCH faster than you would think. Photons of different speeds HAVE BEEN observed. That is the very point I am making. They are responsible for the majority of observed periodic variation in star brightness. How much more evidence does one need? >>> >>>That distribution would be critical evidence for BaT. >> >> No it is definitely not that simple. >> >> I think there is a connection between the luminosity of so-called Miras >> and period of variation. >> >>> >>>> see: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/algol.html >>> >>>interesting. Nothing about BaT or supporting Bat, however. >> >> No but the BaT predicts such curves. SR says they should be flat on top. > >I don't think that is correct. We would need to test that statement. The brightness of two stable orbiting stars should be seen as constant when not in eclipse. Do you want to dispute that? > >>>> 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. >> >> Could be. > >Unfortunately, the pictures were taken several years apart according to the >web page author. With the same camera, but from different locations. Too >bad, it would be nice to discover [even if someone else already had done >so] an asteroid. He is going to check on the original photos. > >I suppose it is still possible that a phase-locked orbital body could show >up in pictures several years apart, but from the exposure time streak >length, it is clear that with pictures several year apart, the asteroid >could not have made both streaks in a single orbit. hmm. >>>aether. >>> >>>Just because his math is identical to Newton's (at low velocities) does >>>not imply his math is based on Newton's assumptions. >> >> The first sentence in Einstein's 1905 paper reads, "let us take a system >> of coordinates in which the laws of Newton hold good." > >Right. Absent such an assertion by the author, any such assumption on our >part would be unwarranted. > >.... >>>> 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. >> >> If any prediction of SR is correct, then I would immediately start >> looking for a 'local' aether. >> SR is based on false logic and blatantly wrong assumptions. >> A light beam that is vertical in one frame does NOT appear diagonal in >> another. It remains vertical. > >If you can prove your assertion, you will have invalidated SR. Go for it! I have. > >A ball thrown from one person to another while both are riding on a merry- >go-round travels in a straight line [as seen by an observer that is >standing beside the merry-go-round] but to the observers ON the merry-go- >round, the path of the ball appears to be curved. Yes. If you plot things in 'rotating frames' you get weird effects. I don't use rotating frames. You should be considering waht happens in 'light clocks'. Read something about the light clock principle. > >>>> 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. >> >> Don't be silly. >> The time differences are likely to be of the order of 10^-9 secs or >> less. > >As I said, it only becomes significant when v is a significant portion of >c. > > >> You obviously didn't understand the significance. > >Clue me. > >> Have a look at the aether case. The times each way are L/(c+v) and >> L/(c-v) . Einstein simply adjusts his clocks so that these times are >> equal and the aether quietly goes away....or does it?. > >He doesn't assume an aether. To the contrary, he assumes there is no >stationary aether or absolute frame of reference. Einstein seemiongly believed in an aether but concocted a way to make it unnecessary. .. or so he thought.. >>>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. >> >> Correction: both 'in excess of' and 'less than'. > >you can't lose velocity if the photons are going less than c if you intend >to reach c. You must c/loss/loss or gain/ if you want to change the >sentence to include slow photons. You know what I mean. >> All known variable stars are in our galaxy...maybe 50000 LYs across. >> Most are with about 5000LYs because they are the ones most easy to see. >> Many better known ones are around 50-100 LYs. > >Good of you to point out that the data may be biased by our ability to >observe. That can, of course, be taken into account. Not easily though. the available data is by no means complete or truly representative. >>>> 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. >> >> You seem to think I am the only person who has realised the error. >> There is a fellow called Robert Fritzius in the US right now who will >> tell you a lot more about it that I can. Look him up on the web. I >> emailed him, recently. > >Perhaps he has some evidence to support his theory. there is plenty of evidence. Every light experiment ever performed support 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. |