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 2 Jun 2005 10:09 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:49:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >> Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>> That's becasuse it [Delta Cep] 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? The quartz crystal puff and blow and turn inside out at precisely regular intervals for hundred of years. Funny how the period is dead constant, eh, Henri? Mechanical resonances tend to be periodical, Henri. Didn't you know that? That's why you have a quartz crystal in your wrist watch. Did you think something was going in orbit in it? > Maybe there are cepheid fairies, too. Sure there are. Nothing but fairies can make the cepheid go in your orbit. >> 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. You are babbling, and you know it. The distance is measured by parallax. (by HST) The absolute magnitude is calculated from the apparent magnitude and the distance. The temperature is measured by spectroscopy. The average diameter can be calculated by the average temperature and the average absolute magnitude. (How big has a sphere at the temperature T have to be to radiate the observed amount of radiation) The period is obvious. Not ONE of these measurements depend on relativity. Not ONE of these parameters would be different even if you had used the ballistic theory in the calculations above. >> 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 = a3/P2 >> 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. OK. So let it be a neutron star. The maximum mass of a neutron star is 3 solar masses. a = 0.120 AU Your neutron star is orbiting deep inside Delta Sep. :-) >>> 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. I do. You obviously don't know much about them. Will your next desperate attempt be that Delta Cep is orbiting a 28 solar mass black hole skimming its surface? :-) Don't you understand how devastating this is for your ridiculous claim, Henri? It is simply impossible to have a binary with a period in the range of days where the primary is a supergiant. In other words, it is utterly impossible that Cepheids are binaries with orbital period equal to their light curve period. But I sure look forward to your attempt to explain how it is possible anyway. It is bound to be funny. :-) Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Jun 2005 19:46 On 2 Jun 2005 07:09:21 -0700, paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no (Paul B. Andersen) wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:49:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>> 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? > > The quartz crystal puff and blow and turn inside out > at precisely regular intervals for hundred of years. > Funny how the period is dead constant, eh, Henri? > >Mechanical resonances tend to be periodical, Henri. >Didn't you know that? >That's why you have a quartz crystal in your wrist watch. >Did you think something was going in orbit in it? So stars have quartz crystal clocks too? Did the fairies make them too? > >> Maybe there are cepheid fairies, too. > >Sure there are. >Nothing but fairies can make the cepheid >go in your orbit. How would you know? They are all too far away for the orbits to be resolved. >> >> >> All these figures are based on Einsteiniana. > > >You are babbling, and you know it. >The distance is measured by parallax. (by HST) Not very accurate. >The absolute magnitude is calculated from >the apparent magnitude and the distance. Not very accurate. >The temperature is measured by spectroscopy. Reasonably accurate. >The average diameter can be calculated by >the average temperature and the average absolute magnitude. Not very accurate. > (How big has a sphere at the temperature T have > to be to radiate the observed amount of radiation) >The period is obvious. Not understood. > >Not ONE of these measurements depend on relativity. >Not ONE of these parameters would be different >even if you had used the ballistic theory >in the calculations above. Temperature would. So would average absolute magnitude. > >>> 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 = a3/P2 >>> 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. > >OK. So let it be a neutron star. >The maximum mass of a neutron star is 3 solar masses. >a = 0.120 AU How do you know that? You don't. >Your neutron star is orbiting deep inside Delta Sep. :-) Well I have discovered a new type of cool heavy star. A 'Wilsonian Heavy'. > >>>> 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. > > >I do. You obviously don't know much about them. >Will your next desperate attempt be that Delta Cep >is orbiting a 28 solar mass black hole skimming >its surface? :-) > >Don't you understand how devastating this is for >your ridiculous claim, Henri? > >It is simply impossible to have a binary with >a period in the range of days where the primary >is a supergiant. > >In other words, it is utterly impossible that >Cepheids are binaries with orbital period >equal to their light curve period. I remember you assuring the late Androcles that binaries can easily have periods this short. > >But I sure look forward to your attempt to >explain how it is possible anyway. >It is bound to be funny. :-) The 'Wilsonian Heavy' cool star. > >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 2 Jun 2005 20:58 On 2 Jun 2005 07:09:21 -0700, paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no (Paul B. Andersen) wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >You are babbling, and you know it. >The distance is measured by parallax. (by HST) >The absolute magnitude is calculated from >the apparent magnitude and the distance. >The temperature is measured by spectroscopy. >The average diameter can be calculated by >the average temperature and the average absolute magnitude. > (How big has a sphere at the temperature T have > to be to radiate the observed amount of radiation) >The period is obvious. > >Not ONE of these measurements depend on relativity. >Not ONE of these parameters would be different >even if you had used the ballistic theory >in the calculations above. > >>> 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. You cannot assume that. >> >> >> >> No, much more than that. >> >> >>> For a binary, we have: >>> Ma + Mb = a3/P2 >>> 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 not crazy. It is a neutron star. >> >> >> >> It is NEUTRON STAR. > >OK. So let it be a neutron star. >The maximum mass of a neutron star is 3 solar masses. Who told you that? >a = 0.120 AU >Your neutron star is orbiting deep inside Delta Sep. :-) > >>>> 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. > > >I do. You obviously don't know much about them. >Will your next desperate attempt be that Delta Cep >is orbiting a 28 solar mass black hole skimming >its surface? :-) > >Don't you understand how devastating this is for >your ridiculous claim, Henri? > >It is simply impossible to have a binary with >a period in the range of days where the primary >is a supergiant. > >In other words, it is utterly impossible that >Cepheids are binaries with orbital period >equal to their light curve period. > >But I sure look forward to your attempt to >explain how it is possible anyway. >It is bound to be funny. :-) > >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: Paul B. Andersen on 1 Jun 2005 10:23 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:49:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>That's becasuse it [Delta Cep] 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? The quartz crystal puff and blow and turn inside out at precisely regular intervals for hundred of years. Funny how the period is dead constant, eh, Henri? Mechanical resonances tend to be periodical, Henri. Didn't you know that? That's why you have a quartz crystal in your wrist watch. Did you think something was going in orbit in it? > Maybe there are cepheid fairies, too. Sure there are. Nothing but fairies can make the cepheid go in your orbit. >>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. You are babbling, and you know it. The distance is measured by parallax. (by HST) The absolute magnitude is calculated from the apparent magnitude and the distance. The temperature is measured by spectroscopy. The average diameter can be calculated by the average temperature and the average absolute magnitude. (How big has a sphere at the temperature T have to be to radiate the observed amount of radiation) The period is obvious. Not ONE of these measurements depend on relativity. Not ONE of these parameters would be different even if you had used the ballistic theory in the calculations above. >>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. OK. So let it be a neutron star. The maximum mass of a neutron star is 3 solar masses. a = 0.120 AU Your neutron star is orbiting deep inside Delta Sep. :-) >>>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. I do. You obviously don't know much about them. Will your next desperate attempt be that Delta Cep is orbiting a 28 solar mass black hole skimming its surface? :-) Don't you understand how devastating this is for your ridiculous claim, Henri? It is simply impossible to have a binary with a period in the range of days where the primary is a supergiant. In other words, it is utterly impossible that Cepheids are binaries with orbital period equal to their light curve period. But I sure look forward to your attempt to explain how it is possible anyway. It is bound to be funny. :-) Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 2 Jun 2005 08:03
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:08:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >> Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:00:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:19:33 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I can tell you from some calculations I made back in the late 1980's that ions and electrons accelerated in an electric field would quickly go to speeds much faster than light were it not for relativistic effects. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> HoHohahaha! >>>>> Your calculations were inadequate. >>>>> You forgot to include the fact that the particle outruns the driving field. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well done by a particle to outrun the static field it is in, >>>> isn't it? :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> You know what I mean. Don't act dumb. >> >> >> No, I don't understand what you mean, and neither do you. >> The accelerating electric field is static while the particle is in it. >> The statement "the particle outruns the driving field" >> is meaningless babble. >> >> >>>>> As the particle approaches the speed at which the field acts, a 'reverse field >>>>> bubble' is set up around the charge, reducing the local field to ->zero. >>>> >>>> >>>> I wonder at what speed a static field acts? :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> On a moving charge....so do I. >> >> >> The question is obviously meaningless. >> The force on the particle is qE while it is in the static field, >> and no "speed" can be attributed to a force. > > > > The only thing we know is that the force on a charge 'at rest' is qE. > Evidence is that this force decreases as the charge moves wrt the field. Interesting to see someone claim that there is evidence shoving that F = q(E + v x B) only applies when v = 0. :-) Not very surprising considering who claims it, though. :-) >>To say "the speed at which the field acts" is thus meaningless babble. > > > All right, I will rephrase that. > "The effectivemnes of the field is reduced by the charge's movement through > it". > Happy now? Another cycle of your eternal circle of restating previously fled statements? Paul B. Andersen wrote a long time ago: | The charged particle gains the _same_ amount of energy every | time it passes through the accelerating field, regardless of its speed. | The gained energy does NOT approach zero asymptotically | when the speed approaches c, because it is constant! | | The proof of that when the accelerator is in steady state, | the lost energy in the bends is equal to the energy gained in | the RF-cavities. The lost energy is radiated as synchrotron | radiation, which is easy to measure. | This lost energy does NOT decrease when the speed of | the electrons increases, quite the contrary. | Thus the gained energy does NOT decrease when the speed | of the electrons approaches c. | | So whatever you think happens to the field in the RF-cavities | when the speed approaches c, we KNOW for certain that | the energy transferred to the particles does NOT decrease. Henri Wilson's responded: | I wont argue with that. The particles receive a 'kick' every time they pass the | gaps. During the rest of their travels they lose a little speed. >>>> What I wrote in pure desperation was: >>>> | So the clocks were simply WRONG because they malfunctioned. >>> >>> >>> >>> some SRian exaggerated your statement and said that I claimied they were >>> 'damaged'. >> >> >> Quite. >> And you DID say that they were "changing their physical rate" >> and thus were not functioning properly. >> >> But you are right, it was "uttered in pure desperation." >> Your desperation. > > > > The only relevant point is that atomic clock rates change very slightly when > placed in ANY free fall state. > The change is measured by the original observer in the original frame, the > common time reference being the orbit period of the orbiting clock. > > That doesn't mean the clock malfunctions. It simply does what it was destined > to do. Don't be ridiculous. You claim that the clock is changing its intrinsic speed. A clock which changes its intrinsic speed does not function properly, so it is malfunctioning. >>>> Is your point that if I were NOT desperate, I would have >>>> to admit that the clocks were not wrong, they didn't change >>>> their intrinsic rate when in free fall, they didn't change >>>> their intrinsic rate because of magnetic fields, turbulence, >>>> accelerations, temperature changes or pressure changes, >>>> but they functioned perfectly, and the fact that they showed >>>> exactly what GR predicted could be no coincidence? >>> >>> >>> >>> Paul, we have discussed this before and you cannot explain why the clocks emit >>> a different number of ticks per orbit after being sent into free fall. >> >> >> So we are back to the "what Henry don't understand can't be true" again? >> It is utterly irrelevant what I can or can't explain, >> and it is utterly irrelevant what you do or do not understand. > > > > I understand perfectly. The clock rates physically change in free fall. Quite. Since you do not understand how a clock can run at its same intrinsic rate and still go out of sync of other clocks running at the same intrinsic speed, then there is no way it can be true. Right? :-) >> The point is that a number of experiments with >> macroscopic clocks are done: >> - The Alley experiment, >> - the Vessot experiment, >> - the always ongoing GPS "experiment", >> - the flight tests in this document: >> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf >> >> In every case the predictions of GR have proven to >> be correct within small margins. >> >> THIS IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT! > > > > Bull!! You have admitted that the clocks in these experiments have been running as predicted by GR. Why would you claim that GR is "accidentally right" if you do not admit that it is right? :-) >>> The obvious answer is that their rates have clearly changed PHYSICALLY..... AS >>> MEASURED IN THE ORIGINAL FRAME BY THE ORIGINAL OBSERVER. >> >> >> Exactly! >> You admit that that the experiments prove that the clocks >> do not show what Galilean relativity (absolute time) predicts. >> So you claim that the clocks change their intrinsic rate, >> that is they do not function properly because of a number >> of different reasons, so the clocks are simply WRONG. > > > > The clocks change because they are not perfect clocks. > they do NOT change because some silly maths theory claims that time flow > depends on gravity fields and tick fairies are waiting to gobble up any surplus > ticks. Exactly. That was what I said you claim right above, so why do you repeat it? >> And you claim that in every case the "error" only by pure >> accident happens to be exactly what GR predicts it should be. > > > > That has never been shown to be true. Indeed! :-) It is obviously impossible to prove that it is a coincidence, and it is consequently never shown to be true that it is. >> Honestly, Henri. >> If you really believe that, you must have lost your >> mind completely. It is too ridiculous to seriously >> be claimed by a sane person. > > > > GPS clocks are empirically tuned to the ground clocks after beiung sent into > orbit. Don't pretend not to know that the GPS clocks are proven to run as predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks. This remark was only to divert the attention from the stupidity of your claim that GR is right by accident. Wasn't it? Because even you understand that it is an incredible stupid claim, don't you? Paul |