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 31 May 2005 20:06 On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:49:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 31 May 2005 01:00:14 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >> >> >>>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" >>>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. >> >> >> That's becasuse it has a large cool star very close by. >> We cannot resolve the orbit. All we can detect is the brightness variation and >> the (its) daily temperature fluctuation due to the day/night effect. > >You don't only have to be a crackpot, you have to >be an extremely ignorant and stupid crackpot to >claim that Cepheids are something else than what >the observations tell them to be, namely pulsating stars. They puff and blow and turn inside out at precisely regular intervals for hundreds of years. Funny how the period is dead constant, eh, Paul? Maybe there are cepheid fairies, too. > >Here is a small part of what we know about Delta Cephei: >It is a super giant. Distance 273 parsec (890 ly) >Its mean radius is 41.6 solar radii or 0.193 AU >Its mass ca. 5 solar masses All these figures are based on Einsteiniana. >Its absolute magnitude varies between -4.34 and -3.47 >with period 5.366270 days = 0.0147 year >Its spectral class and temperature varies between >F5 - 6800K and G2 - 5500K. > >You claim it orbits a "large cool star". >What can a "large cool star" be? >A red giant? No, past that stage, maybe a neutron star. >Let us assume that this companion has a mass of >5 solar masses, the same as Delta Cep. No, much more than that. > >For a binary, we have: >Ma + Mb = a^3/P^2 >Where Ma and Mb are the stellar masses in solar masses, >a is the distance between the star's centres in AU >P is the period in years. > >Inserting the values above gives us: a = 0.129 AU. > >The centre of the "large cool star" has to be inside >of Delta Cep! > >Don't think you can save it by assuming another mass >of your "large cool star". >If the radius of this star were zero, and it was >skimming the surface of Delta Cep, its mass would >have to be 28 solar masses! > >Its crazy. It is NEUTRON STAR. > >> You can learn a lot by discussing things with me, Ghost. > >Quite. >He can learn that there is no limit to your stupidity. I thought you knew about neutron stars. > >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 31 May 2005 20:11 On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:53:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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 > >Delta Cephei is a binary with orbital period hundreds >or thousands of years, while the period of brightness variation >is 5 days 8 hours 47 minutes and 32 seconds. The fact that it and its close companion are also orbiting another star, with a period of maybe 100,000 years might give rise to Sekerin/Wilson time compression. That could mean the true period of brightness variation is considerably greater than 5 days...possibly double that. > >> Its temperature variation is obviously in synch with its orbit period .....and >> it is also in synch with the brightness curve. > >That's obviously utter nonsense. It came from an article to which you referred. > >Care to try again? > >My question was: >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? How do you explain the precise constancy of the process. It is obviously in synch with the orbit period. Nothing else could be that constant. > >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 31 May 2005 21:00 In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Tue, 31 May 2005 23:59:56 GMT <r8up919efc2s6jt66fbb50bceq42c2fjhe(a)4ax.com>: > On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:00:10 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Tue, 31 May 2005 05:53:23 GMT > >>>>> 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. >>> >>> That's becasuse it has a large cool star very close by. >>> We cannot resolve the orbit. All we can detect is the >>> brightness variation and the (its) daily temperature >>> fluctuation due to the day/night effect. >> >>So this is true for all the Cepheid variables, then? > > could easily be true. Somehow, I doubt it ... but you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I regarding astronomy. I know the things exist and are well-characterized; that's about it. > >> >>> >>> You can learn a lot by discussing things with me, Ghost. >> >>So please tell me why they're not using a reference signal >>in the LHC of about 1.3787 MHz again? >> >>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d19ec5acd47fbe44?dmode=source > > How does the LHC work? A very broad question. The layman's answer is that particles are contained in a strong magnetic field in a storage ring and accelerated by either magnetic or electric fields (probably a combination of both depending on where they are in the process, as there's a small injector involved, to get the particles into the main ring). The amount of energy poured into the "beam bunch" is far more than required to accelerate the particle to Newtonian lightspeed, E = 1/2 m c^2. Yet the signal frequency -- presumably an artifact of the beam's travel around the ring -- specified is consistent with a speed of c, or just under c. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Jun 2005 01:30 On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 01:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Tue, 31 May 2005 23:59:56 GMT ><r8up919efc2s6jt66fbb50bceq42c2fjhe(a)4ax.com>: >> On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:00:10 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>><H@> >>> wrote >>>on Tue, 31 May 2005 05:53:23 GMT >> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> That's becasuse it has a large cool star very close by. >>>> We cannot resolve the orbit. All we can detect is the >>>> brightness variation and the (its) daily temperature >>>> fluctuation due to the day/night effect. >>> >>>So this is true for all the Cepheid variables, then? >> >> could easily be true. > >Somehow, I doubt it ... but you'd have to ask someone more >knowledgeable than I regarding astronomy. I know the things >exist and are well-characterized; that's about it. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> You can learn a lot by discussing things with me, Ghost. >>> >>>So please tell me why they're not using a reference signal >>>in the LHC of about 1.3787 MHz again? >>> >>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d19ec5acd47fbe44?dmode=source >> >> How does the LHC work? > >A very broad question. The layman's answer is that particles are >contained in a strong magnetic field in a storage ring and accelerated >by either magnetic or electric fields (probably a combination of >both depending on where they are in the process, as there's a small >injector involved, to get the particles into the main ring). > >The amount of energy poured into the "beam bunch" is far more than >required to accelerate the particle to Newtonian lightspeed, >E = 1/2 m c^2. Yet the signal frequency -- presumably an artifact >of the beam's travel around the ring -- specified is consistent >with a speed of c, or just under c. Ok just a normal cyclotron in principle. It has an 800m radius, according to your figures. I don't see where your previous reference to photons is relevant. The charged particle sappear to become heavier becasue it becomes progressively harder to accelerate them, That is a myth. The accelerating field simply becomes less effective as they approach c, which is the rate at which the field acts. .. > >[.sigsnip] 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 2 Jun 2005 06:26
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:t56t91912v04fc2tf409eusbddik0nrdpv(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 01:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Tue, 31 May 2005 23:59:56 GMT >><r8up919efc2s6jt66fbb50bceq42c2fjhe(a)4ax.com>: >>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:00:10 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>>><H@> >>>> wrote >>>>on Tue, 31 May 2005 05:53:23 GMT >>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> That's becasuse it has a large cool star very close by. >>>>> We cannot resolve the orbit. All we can detect is the >>>>> brightness variation and the (its) daily temperature >>>>> fluctuation due to the day/night effect. >>>> >>>>So this is true for all the Cepheid variables, then? >>> >>> could easily be true. >> >>Somehow, I doubt it ... but you'd have to ask someone more >>knowledgeable than I regarding astronomy. I know the things >>exist and are well-characterized; that's about it. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You can learn a lot by discussing things with me, Ghost. >>>> >>>>So please tell me why they're not using a reference signal >>>>in the LHC of about 1.3787 MHz again? >>>> >>>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d19ec5ac >>>>d47fbe44?dmode=source >>> >>> How does the LHC work? >> >>A very broad question. The layman's answer is that particles are >>contained in a strong magnetic field in a storage ring and accelerated >>by either magnetic or electric fields (probably a combination of >>both depending on where they are in the process, as there's a small >>injector involved, to get the particles into the main ring). >> >>The amount of energy poured into the "beam bunch" is far more than >>required to accelerate the particle to Newtonian lightspeed, >>E = 1/2 m c^2. Yet the signal frequency -- presumably an artifact >>of the beam's travel around the ring -- specified is consistent >>with a speed of c, or just under c. > > > Ok just a normal cyclotron in principle. It has an 800m radius, > according to your figures. > > I don't see where your previous reference to photons is relevant. > > The charged particle sappear to become heavier becasue it becomes > progressively harder to accelerate them, That is a myth. > The accelerating field simply becomes less effective as they approach c, > which is the rate at which the field acts. The myth is believed by the anything the ions run into when they leave the accelerator. They act just like they have gained mass without going faster than c. They must have a very vivid imagination to make everything else think that they have a huge amount of energy stored in some kind of bubble that has the exact same properties as relativistic mass. A bubble that has never been observed except it has the same properties as relativistic mass. The EXACT same properties. Gosh. Maybe it IS relativisitic mass? If is looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and roasts like a duck and tastes like a duck and DNA testing shows it has the same DNA sequence as a duck, maybe, [just maybe] it really is a duck. -- 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 |