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 6 Jun 2005 06:03 On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:33:55 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:lm07a19eiegnpvdrji2bnqf4mvgs5n10jj(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 01:43:43 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> A very approximate 11 year cycle. The actual period is all over hte >>>> place..as one would expect with gaseous diffusion, etc.. >>> >>>How do you think it looks from a few dozen light years away. >> >> A star with constant brightness. > >How about a 11 year variable with rather small brightness variation? Nobody 300LYs away would even notice it. >> 1 day to 5 years? Same kind of star? > >http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt I feel sorry for them. So much work chasing red herrings. > >>>What if one is interested in truth? > >>>>>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. >> >> (This sounds like the nuclear 'pogo stick' that someone once invented) > >I seek truth. You play 'one-upsmanship games'. There is nothing funny about nuclear pogo sticks. They actually work. (in principle) > >>>> >>>> All in a perfect sphere, of course? :) >>> >>>Stars that rotate are not perfect spheres. >> >> Stars that puff and blow every few days would certainly NOT be perfect >> spheres either. > >http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt so what? > >>>>>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. >>>> >>>> .......desperate for any piece of remote evidence. > >>>I am not the one with faith. > >>>>>Does BaT also predict a sawtooth? >>>> >>>> Precisely, I thought you knew that. >>> >>>Not from your simulations.' > >> eccentricity 0.05-0.2 > >I see a sine wave variation at 0.05 >I see a distorted sine wave at 0.2 with narrow decreases in brightness. >I see nothing like a sawtooth at either. >Perhaps I need other than default values for other parameters. You do. Try yaw -30, ecc=0.2, velocity 0.0002, distance about 200LYs. > >>>>>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 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 6 Jun 2005 08:21 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:5o68a1538p6d4i4s4n1baf8v59ereongvq(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:33:55 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:lm07a19eiegnpvdrji2bnqf4mvgs5n10jj(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 01:43:43 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>>>> >>>>> A very approximate 11 year cycle. The actual period is all over hte >>>>> place..as one would expect with gaseous diffusion, etc.. >>>> >>>>How do you think it looks from a few dozen light years away. >>> >>> A star with constant brightness. >> >>How about a 11 year variable with rather small brightness variation? > > Nobody 300LYs away would even notice it. 300 LYs is considerably more than 'a few dozen'. >>> 1 day to 5 years? Same kind of star? >> >>http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt > > I feel sorry for them. > So much work chasing red herrings. The problem, from your viewpoint, is that they have caught a boatload of red herring and they are well salted, preserved and ready for all to eat. Did you find any errors in what they said? >>>>What if one is interested in truth? >> >>>>>>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. >>> >>> (This sounds like the nuclear 'pogo stick' that someone once invented) >> >>I seek truth. You play 'one-upsmanship games'. > > There is nothing funny about nuclear pogo sticks. They actually work. > (in principle) You build one and I will take the second ride on it. You go first. >>>>> All in a perfect sphere, of course? :) >>>> >>>>Stars that rotate are not perfect spheres. >>> >>> Stars that puff and blow every few days would certainly NOT be perfect >>> spheres either. >> >>http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt > > so what? So, perfect spheres are not required for regular oscillations. >>>>>>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. >>>>> >>>>> .......desperate for any piece of remote evidence. >> >>>>I am not the one with faith. >> >>>>>>Does BaT also predict a sawtooth? >>>>> >>>>> Precisely, I thought you knew that. >>>> >>>>Not from your simulations.' >> >>> eccentricity 0.05-0.2 >> >>I see a sine wave variation at 0.05 >>I see a distorted sine wave at 0.2 with narrow decreases in brightness. >>I see nothing like a sawtooth at either. >>Perhaps I need other than default values for other parameters. > > You do. > Try yaw -30, ecc=0.2, velocity 0.0002, distance about 200LYs. congratulations. A nice looking sawtooth. [with one minor problem, to be discussed later] So lets understand the terms a little better. ecc=0.2 says the orbit of the star in question is eccentric about the center of mass of the system. The orbit is an elipse. Quite an eccentric one. Why? This will show as a doppler shift. It would be good to plot the doppler shift along with the brightness curves and compare them with actual doppler shift data along with actual brightness curves. I suspect that the predictions from SR/GR and BaT will be different. That could be a good test for BaT. There is a problem with your program / BaT per Wilson: The sawtooth goes away when the yaw is varied from -30 degrees. I can't believe that most cepheid variables just happen to have their eccentric orbits oriented so that they are at -30 degrees wrt earth. Now for the 'minor problem' I mentioned earlier. The phase is wrong on the sawtooth. It needs to rise rapidly in brightness and decline slowly. At -30 it declines rapidly and increases slowly. You need -160 or 200 degrees of yaw to get about the right shape. -- 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: Paul B. Andersen on 6 Jun 2005 10:06 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:40:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On 3 Jun 2005 07:08:42 -0700, paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no (Paul B. Andersen) wrote: >>> > > >>>>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. > > > How do you explain why stars of the same approximate size and temperature have > periods ranging from a few days to five years or more? Simple. They don't. > Are the acoustics controlled by fairies too? > > >>>>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. > > > no connection. Another of your fantastic coincidences? :-) > >>> >>>Good. > > >>>>>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: > > > the WCH > > >>>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. > > > Thanks for the help. I will give you a mention. You are dead, Henri. :-) You DO understand that much, don't you? WCH, indeed! :-) > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. You are. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 21:04 On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:06:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 12:40:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>On 3 Jun 2005 07:08:42 -0700, paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no (Paul B. Andersen) wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>>>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. >> >> >> How do you explain why stars of the same approximate size and temperature have >> periods ranging from a few days to five years or more? > >Simple. >They don't. Nearly all cephids are large yellow stars, over the hill. They have widely differing brightness periods. > >> Are the acoustics controlled by fairies too? >> >> >>>>>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. >> >> >> no connection. > >Another of your fantastic coincidences? :-) It isn't even a coincidence. >>> >>>Nobody can parody Henri Wilson like Henri Wilson. :-) >>>Possibly a bit too absurd to be a real good parody, >>>but anyway - well done. >> >> >> Thanks for the help. I will give you a mention. > >You are dead, Henri. :-) >You DO understand that much, don't you? > >WCH, indeed! :-) ....so how do you explain this quote: "Delta Cep is one of the few easily-visible variables, its magnitude changing from 3.5 to 4.3 and back over an amazingly regular period of 5 days 8 hours 47 minutes and 32 seconds, the star acting like a natural clock. " This period constancy has been around for many years. Do you really believe the puffing and blowing of a huge gas accumulation could possibly account for that? More fairies, perhaps? give up Paul. The BaT is the obvious cause of most star brightness variation. > >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > >You are. > >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 6 Jun 2005 21:52
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:21:19 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:5o68a1538p6d4i4s4n1baf8v59ereongvq(a)4ax.com: > >>>>> >>>>>How do you think it looks from a few dozen light years away. >>>> >>>> A star with constant brightness. >>> >>>How about a 11 year variable with rather small brightness variation? >> >> Nobody 300LYs away would even notice it. > >300 LYs is considerably more than 'a few dozen'. It still would hardly be noticed at any distance. > >>>> 1 day to 5 years? Same kind of star? >>> >>>http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt >> >> I feel sorry for them. >> So much work chasing red herrings. > >The problem, from your viewpoint, is that they have caught a boatload of red >herring and they are well salted, preserved and ready for all to eat. > >Did you find any errors in what they said? It's all speculative codswallop. >>>> (This sounds like the nuclear 'pogo stick' that someone once invented) >>> >>>I seek truth. You play 'one-upsmanship games'. >> >> There is nothing funny about nuclear pogo sticks. They actually work. >> (in principle) > >You build one and I will take the second ride on it. You go first. The good thing about them is you don't have to exert any energy as you do with a spring pogo stick. >>>> >>>> Stars that puff and blow every few days would certainly NOT be perfect >>>> spheres either. >>> >>>http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/het611-m18a01.ppt >> >> so what? > >So, perfect spheres are not required for regular oscillations. You need more than a perfect sphere for an oscillation as constant as D cep. You need Andersen's fairies as well. >>>Perhaps I need other than default values for other parameters. >> >> You do. >> Try yaw -30, ecc=0.2, velocity 0.0002, distance about 200LYs. > >congratulations. A nice looking sawtooth. [with one minor problem, to be >discussed later] >So lets understand the terms a little better. > > >ecc=0.2 says the orbit of the star in question is eccentric about the center >of mass of the system. The orbit is an elipse. Quite an eccentric one. Why? Plenty of stars are in orbits with ecc between about 1.5 and 3. If they have the right yaw angles and distance, they produce the typical sawtooth like curves and are classified as cephids. > > >This will show as a doppler shift. It would be good to plot the doppler shift >along with the brightness curves and compare them with actual doppler shift >data along with actual brightness curves. > >I suspect that the predictions from SR/GR and BaT will be different. > >That could be a good test for BaT. Unfortunately, it is hard to find figures for both doppler and brightness for the same star. It would be of great asistance to me if I could. > >There is a problem with your program / BaT per Wilson: > >The sawtooth goes away when the yaw is varied from -30 degrees. > >I can't believe that most cepheid variables just happen to have their >eccentric orbits oriented so that they are at -30 degrees wrt earth. No they are simply classified as something else. This is a good example of the way in which astronomoy has been throw right of the rails by Einsteiniana. Most yellow stars that exhibit sawtooth like brightness curves are ssumed to belong to a particular class when in fact, the only common features they have are yaw angle and orbit eccentricity. Ther are plenty of identical stars that don't exhibit sawtooth curves. > >Now for the 'minor problem' I mentioned earlier. The phase is wrong on the >sawtooth. It needs to rise rapidly in brightness and decline slowly. At -30 >it declines rapidly and increases slowly. You need -160 or 200 degrees of >yaw to get about the right shape. This is interesting because of the way in which star brightness is expressed. I don't think I am the only one confused. Traditionally, there is an 'absolute magnitude' scale, which is an inverted log scale. The brightest stars have small or negative AMs, faint ones have high values...maybe up to 5 which is about the limit with the naked eye. There is also the much more practical 'apparent magnitude' rating, which I gather is the brightness we actually observe and measure. My program portrays apparent magnitude with brightness increasing downwards. Now, I have read opposite reports about delta cephei's light curve. This reference: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cepheid.html shows the sawtooth with a slow rise and fast fall. Yet at: http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0900.shtml I read: "Nevertheless, observers can expect to see delta Cep's rise to maximum take place in about a day and a half, while the fall to minimum occurs over 4 days." So even the experts are confused. Fortunately, changing the yaw angle in my program can reverse the sawtooth direction. If you use 'scan on' you will see the whole picture. It takes a few seconds to run. Even with an eccentricity of 0.1, a pretty good sawtooth is produced. 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. |