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 3 Jun 2005 10:08 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<pv5v91loqrltlihk3ektokuk50ko18s1h2(a)4ax.com>... > 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? The similarity is much better than you think. In a quartz crystal there is a standing acoustic wave. The frequency is determined by the dimension of the crystal and the speed of sound in it. In a Cepheid there is a standing acoustic wave. The frequency is determined by the dimension of the star and the speed of sound in it. http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/%7Ebonnieb/Physics.html That's why there is a close relationship between the size of the star/crystal and the period. It is ridiculous to believe that only objects orbiting each other can have a constant period. Cepheids are found in a small strip ("the instability strip") of the HR-diagram. http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/courses/one/NOTES/Garry%20Pilkington/loc.htm Their properties are very similar. > >>> 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. Let us use this to calculate the following: If we assume a large mass with zero diameter is orbiting the star, skimming its surface, how big would this mass M have to be? Let us do the calculations for a number of Cepheids spread all over the instability strip. SU Cas: radius = 30 solar radii = 0.138 AU period = 1.9 days = 0.0052 year mass = 4.4 solar masses M = 92 solar masses Delta Cep: radius = 41.6 solar radii = 0.193 AU period = 5.366270 days = 0.0147 year mass = 5 solar masses M = 28 solar masses X Cyg: radius = 118 solar radii = 0.543 AU period = 16.5 days = 0.0449 year mass = 8 solar masses M = 71 solar masses RS Pup: radius = 262 solar radii = 1.2 AU period = 41.4 days = 0.113 year mass = 13 solar masses M = 122 solar masses An orbiting star would have to be farther from the Cepheid, of course, and thus be even more massive. And this hyper giant would have to be cool and invisible. So, read again: > >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. Indeed binaries can easily have periods this short or even shorter. So what? I won't bother to explain why this is irrelevant. Because you know it. Don't you? > >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. I find this a bit disappointing. Silly isn't good enough. I want it silly AND funny. So can't you do better? Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 3 Jun 2005 18:39 On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:03:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:08:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > > >> > >> 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. :-) Why do you introduce the magnetic bit? That is another story altogether. The evidence is that the force on a moving charge drops off as the speed increases. Energy goes into a 'reverse field bubble' around the moving charge. The maths turns out to be similar to relativity's 'gamma factor'. > >Not very surprising considering who claims it, though. :-) > > >>To say "the speed at which the field acts" is thus meaningless babble. I was speaking metaphorically. The effect could be regarded as speed of reaction of a field. This is somewhat analogous to the speed of a gravity field that is evidenced in Mercury's anomalous precession. > > > > 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. I see no ionconsistency here. The charge behaves as though its mass and KE increase when in fact the additional energy goes into the 'reverse field bubble'. > > > > > > 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. So far, we humans have been unable to come up with the 'perfect' clock. But we are getting close. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 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? :-) If you are going to tell me that the GR fairies distort time just because a clock happens to move past their spaceship, I can tell you now, I wont believe you. The fact is, the GPS clocks have physically changed, as measured by the original observer in the original frame....and using the same common time reference....ONE ORBIT. > > > >> 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. No I have not. The error is of the same order.....so is that of a half metre long diamond crystal. > >Why would you claim that GR is "accidentally right" >if you do not admit that it is right? :-) The free fall error has never been accurately measured because it is of little significance and only of academic interest to SRians who are desperate to find any even remote evidence that their religion is true. Clock rates are finely software adjusted when the clocks are in orbit. > > > > 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. Nobody who makes or operates GPS system is even remotely interested in the 'GR correction.' They merely adjust the clocks beforehand for the approximate free fall error and then fine tune them when they are up there. > > >> 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, you know as well as I do that launching a GPS clock into orbit places great stresses on the clock and dramatically alters its properties. Naturally, the first thing the operators do when it is up there is adjust the clock's rate to that of the ground clocks. This is a simple software correction. > >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 3 Jun 2005 19:37 On 3 Jun 2005 07:08:42 -0700, paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no (Paul B. Andersen) wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<pv5v91loqrltlihk3ektokuk50ko18s1h2(a)4ax.com>... >> 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? > >The similarity is much better than you think. > >In a quartz crystal there is a standing acoustic wave. >The frequency is determined by the dimension of the crystal >and the speed of sound in it. > >In a Cepheid there is a standing acoustic wave. >The frequency is determined by the dimension of the star >and the speed of sound in it. >http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/%7Ebonnieb/Physics.html > >That's why there is a close relationship between >the size of the star/crystal and the period. Well Paul, you will now have to show me the connection between a resonant acoustic wave through a ball of gas and its surface brightness. > >It is ridiculous to believe that only objects orbiting >each other can have a constant period. If you understood anything about diffusive, random and chaotic processes, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim. Here is a statement from a paper on cepheids: "When one measures the radial velocity of Cepheids, one finds a cyclic variation, which has the same period as their change in brightness. " Funny that. It's exactly what theBaT expects. > > >Cepheids are found in a small strip ("the instability strip") >of the HR-diagram. >http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/courses/one/NOTES/Garry%20Pilkington/loc.htm >Their properties are very similar. Good. > >> >>> 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. > >Let us use this to calculate the following: >If we assume a large mass with zero diameter >is orbiting the star, skimming its surface, >how big would this mass M have to be? > >Let us do the calculations for a number of Cepheids >spread all over the instability strip. > >SU Cas: >radius = 30 solar radii = 0.138 AU >period = 1.9 days = 0.0052 year >mass = 4.4 solar masses >M = 92 solar masses > >Delta Cep: >radius = 41.6 solar radii = 0.193 AU >period = 5.366270 days = 0.0147 year >mass = 5 solar masses >M = 28 solar masses > >X Cyg: >radius = 118 solar radii = 0.543 AU >period = 16.5 days = 0.0449 year >mass = 8 solar masses >M = 71 solar masses > >RS Pup: >radius = 262 solar radii = 1.2 AU >period = 41.4 days = 0.113 year >mass = 13 solar masses >M = 122 solar masses > >An orbiting star would have to be farther from >the Cepheid, of course, and thus be even more massive. >And this hyper giant would have to be cool and >invisible. > >So, read again: >> >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. > >Indeed binaries can easily have periods this short or even shorter. >So what? > >I won't bother to explain why this is irrelevant. >Because you know it. >Don't you? > >> >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. > >I find this a bit disappointing. >Silly isn't good enough. >I want it silly AND funny. >So can't you do better? Well Paul, thanks to your patience and occasionally not unreasonable debating skills, I now can. I have been able to dramatically extend the BaT to explain cepheids, Miras etc, and put another nail in the SRian coffin. The truth is, cepheids are mainly small white stars orbiting neutron stars and other 'Wilsonian cool heavies' (WCH). The occasional red giant that you mention is really a small white but, because the mass of the WHC stars is very high, light is greatly redshifted as it escapes the gravity field of the pair. This also explains the period/brightness relationship. The further away from the WCH the orbiting cepheid is, the less redshift and the more light energy escapes. Note the plane of the orbit wrt the observer is a factor here. see: spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/lmc/lmc.html. Very interesting and supportive of the BaT. Miras are like cephids except no WCH is involved. I think we can start rewriting the astronomy books right now. > > >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 4 Jun 2005 06:40 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 3 Jun 2005 07:08:42 -0700, paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no (Paul B. Andersen) wrote: > > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<pv5v91loqrltlihk3ektokuk50ko18s1h2(a)4ax.com>... >> >>>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? >> >>The similarity is much better than you think. >> >>In a quartz crystal there is a standing acoustic wave. >>The frequency is determined by the dimension of the crystal >>and the speed of sound in it. >> >>In a Cepheid there is a standing acoustic wave. >>The frequency is determined by the dimension of the star >>and the speed of sound in it. >>http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/%7Ebonnieb/Physics.html >> >>That's why there is a close relationship between >>the size of the star/crystal and the period. > > > Well Paul, you will now have to show me the connection between a resonant > acoustic wave through a ball of gas and its surface brightness. Done before, won't bother to repeat it. You never read it anyway. >>It is ridiculous to believe that only objects orbiting >>each other can have a constant period. > > > If you understood anything about diffusive, random and chaotic processes, you > wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim. > > Here is a statement from a paper on cepheids: > "When one measures the radial velocity of Cepheids, one finds a cyclic > variation, which has the same period as their change in brightness. " Of course. > Funny that. It's exactly what theBaT expects. Yea, right. :-) Very apparent from the following. :-) >>Cepheids are found in a small strip ("the instability strip") >>of the HR-diagram. >>http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/courses/one/NOTES/Garry%20Pilkington/loc.htm >>Their properties are very similar. > > > Good. > > >>>>>>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. >> >>Let us use this to calculate the following: >>If we assume a large mass with zero diameter >>is orbiting the star, skimming its surface, >>how big would this mass M have to be? >> >>Let us do the calculations for a number of Cepheids >>spread all over the instability strip. >> >>SU Cas: >>radius = 30 solar radii = 0.138 AU >>period = 1.9 days = 0.0052 year >>mass = 4.4 solar masses >>M = 92 solar masses >> >>Delta Cep: >>radius = 41.6 solar radii = 0.193 AU >>period = 5.366270 days = 0.0147 year >>mass = 5 solar masses >>M = 28 solar masses >> >>X Cyg: >>radius = 118 solar radii = 0.543 AU >>period = 16.5 days = 0.0449 year >>mass = 8 solar masses >>M = 71 solar masses >> >>RS Pup: >>radius = 262 solar radii = 1.2 AU >>period = 41.4 days = 0.113 year >>mass = 13 solar masses >>M = 122 solar masses >> >>An orbiting star would have to be farther from >>the Cepheid, of course, and thus be even more massive. >>And this hyper giant would have to be cool and >>invisible. >> >>So, read again: >> >>>>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. >> >>Indeed binaries can easily have periods this short or even shorter. >>So what? >> >>I won't bother to explain why this is irrelevant. >>Because you know it. >>Don't you? >> >> >>>>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. >> >>I find this a bit disappointing. >>Silly isn't good enough. >>I want it silly AND funny. >>So can't you do better? Henri can indeed do MUCH better: > Well Paul, thanks to your patience and occasionally not unreasonable debating > skills, I now can. I have been able to dramatically extend the BaT to explain > cepheids, Miras etc, and put another nail in the SRian coffin. > > The truth is, cepheids are mainly small white stars orbiting neutron stars and > other 'Wilsonian cool heavies' (WCH). The occasional red giant that you mention > is really a small white but, because the mass of the WHC stars is very high, > light is greatly redshifted as it escapes the gravity field of the pair. > > This also explains the period/brightness relationship. > The further away from the WCH the orbiting cepheid is, the less redshift and > the more light energy escapes. Note the plane of the orbit wrt the observer is > a factor here. > > see: spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/lmc/lmc.html. > > Very interesting and supportive of the BaT. > > Miras are like cephids except no WCH is involved. > > I think we can start rewriting the astronomy books right now. Much better, Henri. I knew you could! Incredible silly AND hilarious! That's the way I want it! Thanks a lot. Nobody can parody Henri Wilson like Henri Wilson. :-) Possibly a bit too absurd to be a real good parody, but anyway - well done. Paul
From: bz on 4 Jun 2005 08:37
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:g4n1a11q7ia6pestvnasp45tk5utoq55e7(a)4ax.com: > Well Paul, you will now have to show me the connection between a > resonant acoustic wave through a ball of gas and its surface brightness. > > >> >>It is ridiculous to believe that only objects orbiting >>each other can have a constant period. > > If you understood anything about diffusive, random and chaotic > processes, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim. Seems like we live near a star that regularly goes through a 11 year cycle. I guess those diffusive, random, and chaotic processes only prevent DISTANT stars from undergoing periodic variations. > Here is a statement from a paper on cepheids: > "When one measures the radial velocity of Cepheids, one finds a cyclic > variation, which has the same period as their change in brightness. " > > Funny that. It's exactly what theBaT expects. Funny also, that is what one would see from a fusion relaxation oscillator. Star core is too cool for sustained fusion of some particular fuel. Starts to collapse under gravity, heats up enough to start fusing at the core, expands [and cools] under the sudden flux of photons, neutrons and neutrinos produced. Stops fusing, but keeps expanding due to inertia for a while, and starts to collapse again, under gravity. Of course, such oscillations would only occur in certain sized[total mass] stars with certain compositions. Within that size range, there would be considerable variation in oscillation frequency and in the stability of the oscillator. Double stars and stars with planets would probably be LESS stable and regular than more isolated stars. The relaxation oscillator would normally have a 'sawtooth' waveform, although other circuit elements change the shape. Does BaT also predict a sawtooth? What shaped curve do most cepheids display? -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- 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 |