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 15 May 2005 23:35 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:qrmf81tj1pkgakk24s10sr3jhfrk36ps3l(a)4ax.com: > 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. Notice, I said 'energy/frequency/wavelength. Up until now, we have disagreed upon this point. > Naturally, the source is not affected in any way. How could it be > (unless you believe in -t ...and a few other myths)? we agree on this point. >>>>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. I undestand that. > Each star has a different one. I understand that. But they are related by a formula. What is the formula for critical distance? >>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. Good. > ..but it isn't as straightforward as you > are making out. I never said it would be straightforward. I still don't know the 'critical distance formula'. >>>>> 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. Exactly right. And if there is a long period orbit, it will take years or centuries or millenia to gather the data and see the 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. right, anything that 'bunches them together', should (under BaT) have batches of them arriving together. Provided they come from the same (approcimate) location. >>>>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. I would hope so. >>>>> 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. Only 50? Loafer! >>>>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. Perhaps. >>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. Who are 'they'? >>> 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. They will use any excuse. >>>>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? variations in star brightness has been observed. It remains to be seen if those variations are due to photons of different speeds or other effects. I have yet to see anything that does not have many possible explainations. >>>>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? That is dependent on many things: 1) Gas clouds around the stars 2) gravity lens effects 3) planets 4) diffraction effects >>>>> 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. Sad, isn't it? ..... >>If you can prove your assertion, you will have invalidated SR. Go for >>it! > > I have. The invalidation of SR requires strong evidence. I have not yet seen strong evidence. >>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. The guy standing beside the merry go round is NOT in a rotating frame of reference. > You should be considering waht happens in 'light clocks'. Read something > about the light clock principle. I know a bit about them but I will do some review. ..... >>> 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. I try to avoid mind reading and to check things out when they don't seem to make sense. >>> 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. That all effects what the reliability of the data and the predictions. >>>>> 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. And one can equally truthfully say that every light experiment ever performed supports SR. -- 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 16 May 2005 01:19 On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:35:06 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:qrmf81tj1pkgakk24s10sr3jhfrk36ps3l(a)4ax.com: > >>> >>>You agreed? >> >> The energy and 'frequency' of an absorbed photon depends on it speed >> relative to the target. > >Notice, I said 'energy/frequency/wavelength. Up until now, we have >disagreed upon this point. What does photon 'wavelength' represent? >>>A star is either within critical distance of earth or outside it, right? >> >> You don't get it. >> There is no SINGLE critical distance. > >I undestand that. > >> Each star has a different one. >I understand that. But they are related by a formula. > >What is the formula for critical distance? Paul Andersen can tell you. He thinks he has 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. > >Good. > >> ..but it isn't as straightforward as you >> are making out. > >I never said it would be straightforward. >I still don't know the 'critical distance formula'. It is easy to calculate for a circular orbit. Incidentally, my program shows that the maximum brightness increase can be obtained with an edge on orbit with eccentricity of about 0.485 and perihelion furthest from observer. Nearly all the light from the 'concave part' of the orbit arrives over a very short time interval at one particular distance. > >>>>>> 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. > >Exactly right. And if there is a long period orbit, it will take years or >centuries or millenia to gather the data and see the variation curve. Yes. >> 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. > >right, anything that 'bunches them together', should (under BaT) have >batches of them arriving together. Provided they come from the same >(approcimate) location. It is usually near enough to being the same. >>>That is exactly what I am suggesting that you do. >> >> I have about fifty other projects going at present. > >Only 50? Loafer! ...and I keep thinking up new ones every day!! >>> >>>Multiple imagery has not yet been observed to be associated with >>>variable stars. >> >> Only because they are always much too far away. > >Perhaps. they are. They would need a huge peripheral speed if we were able to resolve them optically. > >>>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. > >Who are 'they'? The physics 'establishment'. > >>>> 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. > >They will use any excuse. They!! >> >> 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? > >variations in star brightness has been observed. It remains to be seen if >those variations are due to photons of different speeds or other effects. > >I have yet to see anything that does not have many possible explainations. hhmm. >> >> The brightness of two stable orbiting stars should be seen as constant >> when not in eclipse. Do you want to dispute that? > >That is dependent on many things: >1) Gas clouds around the stars It wouldn't chaneg much during one orbit. >2) gravity lens effects Forget them >3) planets too small to worry about. >4) diffraction effects constant over an orbit >>>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. > >Sad, isn't it? I cannot even see them. You must have a vivid imagination or a different picture. > >.... >>>If you can prove your assertion, you will have invalidated SR. Go for >>>it! >> >> I have. > >The invalidation of SR requires strong evidence. I have not yet seen strong >evidence. You haven't seen ANY direct evidence in its support. > >>>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. > >The guy standing beside the merry go round is NOT in a rotating frame of >reference. No. That's why the path appears straight...which it is in Euclidean space, the type our minds create. > >>>> 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.. > >>> >>>Perhaps he has some evidence to support his theory. >> >> there is plenty of evidence. > >> Every light experiment ever performed support the BaT. > >And one can equally truthfully say that every light experiment ever >performed supports SR. No you cannot. 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 16 May 2005 10:36 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:56ag819u1m9oc007dl76ik3pe8vfmt68c7(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 16 May 2005 03:35:06 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:qrmf81tj1pkgakk24s10sr3jhfrk36ps3l(a)4ax.com: >>>>You agreed? >>> >>> The energy and 'frequency' of an absorbed photon depends on it speed >>> relative to the target. >> >>Notice, I said 'energy/frequency/wavelength. Up until now, we have >>disagreed upon this point. > > What does photon 'wavelength' represent? According to your earlier statement, it represents the results of the interaction with a diffraction grating. Under SR, it is closely related to both the energy and the frequency by c and by h respectively. >>>>A star is either within critical distance of earth or outside it, >>>>right? >>> >>> You don't get it. >>> There is no SINGLE critical distance. >> >>I undestand that. >> >>> Each star has a different one. >>I understand that. But they are related by a formula. >> >>What is the formula for critical distance? > > Paul Andersen can tell you. He thinks he has 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. >> >>Good. >> >>> ..but it isn't as straightforward as you >>> are making out. >> >>I never said it would be straightforward. >>I still don't know the 'critical distance formula'. > > It is easy to calculate for a circular orbit. > > Incidentally, my program shows that the maximum brightness increase can > be obtained with an edge on orbit with eccentricity of about 0.485 and > perihelion furthest from observer. > Nearly all the light from the 'concave part' of the orbit arrives over a > very short time interval at one particular distance. will look at. ..... >>> 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. >> >>right, anything that 'bunches them together', should (under BaT) have >>batches of them arriving together. Provided they come from the same >>(approximate) location. > > It is usually near enough to being the same. We seek the unusual. >>>>That is exactly what I am suggesting that you do. >>> >>> I have about fifty other projects going at present. >> >>Only 50? Loafer! > > ..and I keep thinking up new ones every day!! I don't even need to think up new ones, my wife will be glad to do it for me. :) >>>> >>>>Multiple imagery has not yet been observed to be associated with >>>>variable stars. >>> >>> Only because they are always much too far away. >> >>Perhaps. > > they are. > > They would need a huge peripheral speed if we were able to resolve them > optically. > >> >>>>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. >> >>Who are 'they'? > > The physics 'establishment'. Or the Bat 'estabmishment'? > >> >>>>> 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. >> >>They will use any excuse. > > They!! note, I was quoting you. :) > > >>> >>> 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? >> >>variations in star brightness has been observed. It remains to be seen >>if those variations are due to photons of different speeds or other >>effects. >> >>I have yet to see anything that does not have many possible >>explainations. > > hhmm. mmhhh? > > >>> >>> The brightness of two stable orbiting stars should be seen as constant >>> when not in eclipse. Do you want to dispute that? >> >>That is dependent on many things: >>1) Gas clouds around the stars > > It wouldn't chaneg much during one orbit. scatter from gas clouds will change with the angle of incidence of the light upon the cloud. > >>2) gravity lens effects > > Forget them why? > >>3) planets > > too small to worry about. perhaps. > >>4) diffraction effects > > constant over an orbit. not necessarily. >>>>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. >> >>Sad, isn't it? > > I cannot even see them. You must have a vivid imagination or a different > picture. look at http://chemistry.lsu.edu/bz/comet_asteroid.jpg I downloaded the two pictures, inverted one and put it on the other. Things that stayed the same 'cancel out' leaving a gray background. The white streak on the left, circled, and the black streak(negative image), in the right circle were my suspected comet/asteriod. > >> >>.... >>>>If you can prove your assertion, you will have invalidated SR. Go for >>>>it! >>> >>> I have. >> >>The invalidation of SR requires strong evidence. I have not yet seen >>strong evidence. > > You haven't seen ANY direct evidence in its support. I have yet to see any evidence that does NOT support 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. >>> >>> Yes. If you plot things in 'rotating frames' you get weird effects. I >>> don't use rotating frames. >> >>The guy standing beside the merry go round is NOT in a rotating frame of >>reference. > > No. That's why the path appears straight...which it is in Euclidean > space, the type our minds create. The guy in the moving frame of reference sees the laser beam vertical. The one stationary sees that it really follows a diagonal. BTW, we live in a moving frame of reference. ..... >>> there is plenty of evidence. >>> Every light experiment ever performed support the BaT. >> >>And one can equally truthfully say that every light experiment ever >>performed supports SR. > > No you cannot. Example me some. -- 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 16 May 2005 19:19 On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:56ag819u1m9oc007dl76ik3pe8vfmt68c7(a)4ax.com: > >>>> The energy and 'frequency' of an absorbed photon depends on it speed >>>> relative to the target. >>> >>>Notice, I said 'energy/frequency/wavelength. Up until now, we have >>>disagreed upon this point. >> >> What does photon 'wavelength' represent? > >According to your earlier statement, it represents the results of the >interaction with a diffraction grating. > >Under SR, it is closely related to both the energy and the frequency by c and >by h respectively. Let me rephrase my question. What aspect of an photon is responsible for its apparent possession of a characteristic 'wavelength'? Until we know this, I cannot answer your question. My model of a photon is the 'sawtooth one'. A photon is like a moving saw blade. The rate at which the teeth pass a point is its frequency. The distance between teeth is its (fixed) wavelength. Whether or not the teeth move up and down in a kind of standing wave is also something to be considered. > >> >> It is easy to calculate for a circular orbit. >> >> Incidentally, my program shows that the maximum brightness increase can >> be obtained with an edge on orbit with eccentricity of about 0.485 and >> perihelion furthest from observer. >> Nearly all the light from the 'concave part' of the orbit arrives over a >> very short time interval at one particular distance. > >will look at. >>>> The brightness of two stable orbiting stars should be seen as constant >>>> when not in eclipse. Do you want to dispute that? >>> >>>That is dependent on many things: >>>1) Gas clouds around the stars >> >> It wouldn't chaneg much during one orbit. > >scatter from gas clouds will change with the angle of incidence of the light >upon the cloud. > >> >>>2) gravity lens effects >> >> Forget them > >why? They wont affect the SPEED of the light much. Actually. there will be a slight spead of light speeds due to the fact that light from the egdes has different escape speeds from light at the nearest point to the observer. > >> >>>3) planets >> >> too small to worry about. > >perhaps. > >> >>>4) diffraction effects >> >> constant over an orbit. > >not necessarily. I think we can assume that the any star's axis of rotation is roughly parallel to the orbital axis of rotation. There appears to be a reason for this, eg in our solar system where they are all pretty well lined up except one that was captured recently.. > >>>Sad, isn't it? >> >> I cannot even see them. You must have a vivid imagination or a different >> picture. > >look at >http://chemistry.lsu.edu/bz/comet_asteroid.jpg > >I downloaded the two pictures, inverted one and put it on the other. >Things that stayed the same 'cancel out' leaving a gray background. >The white streak on the left, circled, and the black streak(negative image), >in the right circle were my suspected comet/asteriod. Yes, you seem to have made a discovery. Unfortunately there is no way to determine its distance from us. >>>> Yes. If you plot things in 'rotating frames' you get weird effects. I >>>> don't use rotating frames. >>> >>>The guy standing beside the merry go round is NOT in a rotating frame of >>>reference. >> >> No. That's why the path appears straight...which it is in Euclidean >> space, the type our minds create. > >The guy in the moving frame of reference sees the laser beam vertical. The >one stationary sees that it really follows a diagonal. No he doesn't. It remains vertical in all frames. You have made the same mistake as Einstein did. Run my 'vertical.exe' or 'movingframe.exe' programs again. ...or just plot the positions of 'wavecrests', yourself. > >BTW, we live in a moving frame of reference. No we don't. We are in a slowly rotating frame, which means it is not quite inertial. Do you know what an 'inertial state' is? > >.... >>>> there is plenty of evidence. >>>> Every light experiment ever performed support the BaT. >>> >>>And one can equally truthfully say that every light experiment ever >>>performed supports SR. >> >> No you cannot. > >Example me some. The MMX. The constancy of TWLS. 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 16 May 2005 20:45
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:979i819p74n1rgecd63img63t7i0jjl2ap(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:36:02 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:56ag819u1m9oc007dl76ik3pe8vfmt68c7(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>> The energy and 'frequency' of an absorbed photon depends on it speed >>>>> relative to the target. >>>> >>>>Notice, I said 'energy/frequency/wavelength. Up until now, we have >>>>disagreed upon this point. >>> >>> What does photon 'wavelength' represent? >> >>According to your earlier statement, it represents the results of the >>interaction with a diffraction grating. >> >>Under SR, it is closely related to both the energy and the frequency by >>c and by h respectively. > > Let me rephrase my question. > > What aspect of an photon is responsible for its apparent possession of a > characteristic 'wavelength'? > Until we know this, I cannot answer your question. > > My model of a photon is the 'sawtooth one'. Mine (consistent with SR) would be a similar to yours except the saw is rubber. If the source is moving toward the destination, the teeth get pushed closer together. If the source is moving away from the destination, the teeth get stretched further apart. > A photon is like a moving saw blade. The rate at which the teeth pass a > point is its frequency. The distance between teeth is its (fixed) > wavelength. > > Whether or not the teeth move up and down in a kind of standing wave is > also something to be considered. Imagine an omnicient observer located midway between source and destination and moving at such a velocity so that both 'source' and 'destination' are either approaching 'observer' at the same velocities or both are receeding from 'observer' at the same velocities. The observer sees the photon doppler shifted by the relative velocity between him and the source. The destination sees twice the doppler shift as that seen by the observer. Lets say source and destination are both approaching observer. Observer sees the 'EM helix' of the photon 'compressed' as it leaves source and sees the 'EM helix' of the photon further 'compressed' as it arrives at 'destination'. 'Observer' could be moving at ANY velocity, in any direction and he could still determine that the photon's energy/frequency/wavelength, as measured by 'destination' would be the expected doppler shift, destination wrt source. >>> It is easy to calculate for a circular orbit. >>> >>> Incidentally, my program colors are better but 'how to use this program' on second page is still unreadable. I have some questions about the program. Please e-mail me at the address in the signature of this post. >>> shows that the maximum brightness increase >>> can be obtained with an edge on orbit with eccentricity of about 0.485 >>> and perihelion furthest from observer. >>> Nearly all the light from the 'concave part' of the orbit arrives over >>> a very short time interval at one particular distance. >> >>will look at. > > > >>>>> The brightness of two stable orbiting stars should be seen as >>>>> constant when not in eclipse. Do you want to dispute that? >>>> >>>>That is dependent on many things: >>>>1) Gas clouds around the stars >>> >>> It wouldn't chaneg much during one orbit. >> >>scatter from gas clouds will change with the angle of incidence of the >>light upon the cloud. >> >>> >>>>2) gravity lens effects >>> >>> Forget them >> >>why? > > They wont affect the SPEED of the light much. You are the 'speed changes person', I am intersted in anything that could cause changes in BRIGHTNESS. I think that the gravity lens effect could cause sharp peaks in brightness just before and just after the actual eclipse. > Actually. there will be a slight spead of light speeds due to the fact > that light from the egdes has different escape speeds from light at the > nearest point to the observer. >> >>> >>>>3) planets >>> >>> too small to worry about. >> >>perhaps. >> >>> >>>>4) diffraction effects >>> >>> constant over an orbit. >> >>not necessarily. > > I think we can assume that the any star's axis of rotation is roughly > parallel to the orbital axis of rotation. There appears to be a reason > for this, eg in our solar system where they are all pretty well lined up > except one that was captured recently.. That assumption depends on the stars having formed together. Stars that are capture could easily have random orientations on their axes of rotation. .... > Yes, you seem to have made a discovery. > Unfortunately there is no way to determine its distance from us. If the photos had been within days of each other, then I might have made a discovery. As it is, I may have spotted two different satellites or some object syn'd to the earths orbit. The length of the streak indicates to me that [it was|they were] moving rather rapidly. ..... >>The guy in the moving frame of reference sees the laser beam vertical. >>The one stationary sees that it really follows a diagonal. > > No he doesn't. > It remains vertical in all frames. > You have made the same mistake as Einstein did. Then I am in good company. :) > Run my 'vertical.exe' or 'movingframe.exe' programs again. > ..or just plot the positions of 'wavecrests', yourself. I have done so. I still think that the observer in the moving frame of reference will see the beam as moving along the diagonal. If he had very sophisticated test equipment, he might notice that each photon was tilted a bit wrt the line of travel. >>BTW, we live in a moving frame of reference. > > No we don't. We are in a slowly rotating frame, which means it is not > quite inertial. > Do you know what an 'inertial state' is? Rotation is a form of movement. Earth rotates on its axis. Earth revolves around earth/moon cog. Earth revolves around the sun. Solar system (with earth) revolves around center of Milky Way galaxy, Milky Way Galaxy, the greater and lesser Magenlenic clouds and who knows what else form a local group that is revolving around its center of mass... etc. We live in a moving frame of reference. an inertial system is [quote] A reference system in which the Newtonian law of motion is valid, specifically one in which a mass m subjected to a force F moves in accordance with the equation F = ma, where a is the acceleration.[unquote] >>>>> there is plenty of evidence. >>>>> Every light experiment ever performed support the BaT. >>>> >>>>And one can equally truthfully say that every light experiment ever >>>>performed supports SR. >>> >>> No you cannot. >> >>Example me some. > > The MMX. > The constancy of TWLS. Those are examples that support SR. Example me some that do NOT support SR. I will assume that they will support BaT. -- 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 |