Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Paul B. Andersen on 30 May 2005 03:06 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:20:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>How does Einsteiniana explain why almost all brightness curves exhibit dead >>>constant preiods....periods that are generally of the same order as orbit >>>periods. >> >>Since you are referring to "periods that are generally >>the same order as orbit periods", you must be talking >>about eclipsing binaries. >>Why do you find it strange that these "exhibit >>dead constant periods"? > > > Why do you think stars puff and blow and turn themselves inside out at exacvtly > their orbit periods, paul? > Coincidence? Are you claiming that there are binaries which "puff and blow and turn themselves inside out at exactly their orbit periods" ? :-) I never heard of those binaries. Can you name examples, please? Paul
From: G on 30 May 2005 09:30 Paul B. Andersen wrote: > G wrote: > > > > also from the same Wikiepedia article > > > > "But the Michelson-Morley experiment, arguably the most famous and > > useful failed experiment in the history of physics, could not find this > > aether, suggesting instead that the speed of light is constant in all > > frames of reference." > > > > The MMX only proved that light moves at constant speed within a > > reference frame. > > Don't you agree? It disproved the ether, that's all. > > The MMX proved that the speed of light was isotropic. > Since it was repeated at different times of the year > (when the Earth is not stationary in the same inertial frame), > it showed that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial > frames of reference, which falsifies Michelson's ether. > The MMX does however NOT show that the speed of light is > the same in all frames of reference, that is, it doesn't show > that the speed of light is invariant. Ok so the speed of light within each "reference frame" is always measured the same. There is not all pervading ether that carries the light, no relative movement of ether. OK > > That was why the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment was done in 1932. > This esperiment showed that the speed of light was the same > in all inertial frames. Need to look at this. BZ's refs help, thank s BZ > > > But note carefully : the speed of light WHOSE SOURCE AND TARGET BOTH > > ARE IN THE > > SAME REFERENCE FRAME. The MMX says nothing about source moving wrt to > > target > > Right, but not news. > > > I believe this is where the critical error was made, equating the > > failed MMX > > to a blanket assumption that light from any source will be measured as > > c > > in any other reference frame. > > Neither the MMX nor the KTX falsify the ballistic theory. > It is your delusion that anybody has considered the MMX > to be a falsification of the ballistic theory. According to the book "the Universe and Dr Einstien" and also the 1920 paper AE seems to think that MMX did prove the invariance of the speed of light. This is the problem I have, such reasoning is unwarranted: the theory may be correct but the reasoning.. > > > > > A sort of a ballistic theory of light (since a photon is a particle) > > seems a bit more realistic > > Quite. > But the ballistic theory is falsified by > other experiments than the MMX. But what is the ballistic theory? What I am seeing now is that it is nothing to do with light but space itself. "relative movement of two frames distorts space and time between each other" But why should this be? Finally we have to look at experimental evidence. > > I see you have got the references fron bz. > > Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 30 May 2005 18:27 On Mon, 30 May 2005 09:06:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:20:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>How does Einsteiniana explain why almost all brightness curves exhibit dead >>>>constant preiods....periods that are generally of the same order as orbit >>>>periods. >>> >>>Since you are referring to "periods that are generally >>>the same order as orbit periods", you must be talking >>>about eclipsing binaries. >>>Why do you find it strange that these "exhibit >>>dead constant periods"? >> >> >> Why do you think stars puff and blow and turn themselves inside out at exacvtly >> their orbit periods, paul? >> Coincidence? > >Are you claiming that there are binaries which >"puff and blow and turn themselves inside out at exactly > their orbit periods" ? :-) > >I never heard of those binaries. >Can you name examples, please? delta ceph Its temperature variation is obviously in synch with its orbit period .....and it is also in synch with the brightness curve. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 30 May 2005 18:32 On 30 May 2005 06:30:44 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> G wrote: >> > >> > also from the same Wikiepedia article >> > >> > "But the Michelson-Morley experiment, arguably the most famous and >> > useful failed experiment in the history of physics, could not find this >> > aether, suggesting instead that the speed of light is constant in all >> > frames of reference." >> > >> > The MMX only proved that light moves at constant speed within a >> > reference frame. >> > Don't you agree? It disproved the ether, that's all. >> >> The MMX proved that the speed of light was isotropic. >> Since it was repeated at different times of the year >> (when the Earth is not stationary in the same inertial frame), >> it showed that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial >> frames of reference, which falsifies Michelson's ether. >> The MMX does however NOT show that the speed of light is >> the same in all frames of reference, that is, it doesn't show >> that the speed of light is invariant. > >Ok so the speed of light within each "reference frame" is >always measured the same. There is not all pervading ether >that carries the light, no relative movement of ether. OK > >> >> That was why the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment was done in 1932. >> This esperiment showed that the speed of light was the same >> in all inertial frames. > >Need to look at this. BZ's refs help, thank s BZ >> >> > But note carefully : the speed of light WHOSE SOURCE AND TARGET BOTH >> > ARE IN THE >> > SAME REFERENCE FRAME. The MMX says nothing about source moving wrt to >> > target >> >> Right, but not news. >> >> > I believe this is where the critical error was made, equating the >> > failed MMX >> > to a blanket assumption that light from any source will be measured as >> > c >> > in any other reference frame. >> >> Neither the MMX nor the KTX falsify the ballistic theory. >> It is your delusion that anybody has considered the MMX >> to be a falsification of the ballistic theory. > >According to the book "the Universe and Dr Einstien" and >also the 1920 paper AE seems to think that MMX did prove the invariance >of the speed of light. This is the problem I have, such reasoning >is unwarranted: the theory may be correct but the reasoning.. > > > >> >> > >> > A sort of a ballistic theory of light (since a photon is a particle) >> > seems a bit more realistic >> >> Quite. >> But the ballistic theory is falsified by >> other experiments than the MMX. > >But what is the ballistic theory? What I am seeing now is that it is >nothing to do with light but space itself. Rubbish. The ballistic theory is simply based on the obvious fact that light travels at c wrt its source. It usually has no other reference...and it certainly has no idea where it is going to end up. > >"relative movement of two frames distorts space and time between each >other" > >But why should this be? > >Finally we have to look at experimental evidence. >> >> I see you have got the references fron bz. >> >> Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 30 May 2005 21:00
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Mon, 30 May 2005 22:27:14 GMT <mo4n91tvfha7a0hdld9feg9m8tud94u9eg(a)4ax.com>: > On Mon, 30 May 2005 09:06:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:20:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>>How does Einsteiniana explain why almost all brightness >>>>>curves exhibit dead constant preiods....periods that >>>>>are generally of the same order as orbit periods. >>>> >>>>Since you are referring to "periods that are generally >>>>the same order as orbit periods", you must be talking >>>>about eclipsing binaries. >>>>Why do you find it strange that these "exhibit >>>>dead constant periods"? >>> >>> >>> Why do you think stars puff and blow and turn themselves inside >>> out at exacvtly their orbit periods, paul? >>> Coincidence? >> >>Are you claiming that there are binaries which >>"puff and blow and turn themselves inside out at exactly >> their orbit periods" ? :-) >> >>I never heard of those binaries. >>Can you name examples, please? > > delta ceph > > Its temperature variation is obviously in synch with its > orbit period .....and it is also in synch with the brightness curve. Um...while Delta Cephei is a binary, the orbital period is probably on the order of thousands if not millions of years (we've not been able to measure it yet). The brightness period of Delta Cephei is a few days or weeks. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |