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 12 Jun 2005 15:33 The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In sci.physics, Paul B. Andersen > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> > wrote >>>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:01:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>>>A star is basically a spherical black body emitting >>>>a black body spectrum. So the emitted power per surface >>>>area is W = sigma*T^4, sigma = Stefan-Boltzmann constant. >>>>When the temperature and emitted power is known, >>>>the surface area and thus the diameter of the star can >>>>be calculated. > > > Assuming, of course, that a star is in fact a spherical > thermal black body. (I'd say that's a fairly safe assumption, > myself. :-) It will not be strictly spherical if it is rotating, of course. > However, I'd have to look at what photons are > emitted from the H -> He reaction, and it may depend on > which cycle the star uses.) The fusion emits gamma radiation. But that happens in the core, and these photons do not go far before they are absorbed. New photons are emitted - and absorbed. It takes in the order of a million years for the energy to get from the core to the surface of the star. The star radiates its energy as a black body in the photosphere. The temperature is what it has to be to radiate as much energy as is produced in the fusion. [..] >>So we have an invisible star with hundreds of solar masses. >>Such stars do not exist. > > > Black holes do. Admittedly, I for one would find a black > hole nearly touching a glowing M1- or M2-mass star > extremely unlikely without many highly noticeable effects, > a la Cygnus X-1. > > I mention this mostly for completeness. Then think about this: How could a 100 solar mass black hole be created? When a black hole is created from a collapsing star, its mass will be but few solar masses. If such an animal exists, it certainly isn't as a component of a binary. (But who knows what may lurk in the centre of some globular clusters?) But anyway - as you say - a 100 solar masses black hole in the close vicinity of a Cepheid would make it presence very obvious. >>And you think you by repeating "puffing and blowing" over and over >>can make it ridiculous that a standing wave has a stable period? :-) > > > Who says they have a constant period anyway? I suspect they slowly > change -- *very* slowly, but I don't have the theory handy -- > as the hydrogen is converted to helium and the density/characteristics > of the star gas change. The period is NOT constant for eternity. Cepheids are stars which have left the main sequence and passes through the instability strip of the HR-diagram on their way to their death. But we are talking about millions of years on this journey, so most Cepheids will appear very regular for the century or so we have observed (some of) them. Polaris is an exception - the last century happens to be the time when it leaves the instability strip. It is hardly a Cepheid any more. > At some point a Cepheid will, quite literally, run out of gas. > (Just like all the others, only different. :-) ) See: http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/courses/one/NOTES/Garry%20Pilkington/loc.htm Specifically the animated figure showing a star's journey from the main sequence to its death - passing through the instability strip twice - and thus being a Cepheid twice. >>The Cepheid RT Aurigae with period 3.72 days, have a maxum >>surface velocity 17 km/s. The escape velocity is 200 km/s. >>So why would there be "bits of gas flying everywhere"? :-) > > > Well, there would be moving bits of gas, anyway. I'll admit to > wondering whether we can detect the movement with a sufficiently > sensitive spectroscope. Indeed we can. It is routine. The pulsation is measured as a periodic variation in the radial velocity of the star. How did you think the surface velocity of RT Aurigae cited above was measured? http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html Paul
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 12 Jun 2005 17:00 In sci.physics, Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:33:22 +0200 <d8i2m7$50d$1(a)dolly.uninett.no>: > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >> In sci.physics, Paul B. Andersen >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> >> wrote > >>>>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:01:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>> >>>>>A star is basically a spherical black body emitting >>>>>a black body spectrum. So the emitted power per surface >>>>>area is W = sigma*T^4, sigma = Stefan-Boltzmann constant. >>>>>When the temperature and emitted power is known, >>>>>the surface area and thus the diameter of the star can >>>>>be calculated. >> >> >> Assuming, of course, that a star is in fact a spherical >> thermal black body. (I'd say that's a fairly safe assumption, >> myself. :-) > > It will not be strictly spherical if it is rotating, > of course. Of course. But this is presumably a first-order approx... > >> However, I'd have to look at what photons are >> emitted from the H -> He reaction, and it may depend on >> which cycle the star uses.) > > The fusion emits gamma radiation. But that happens in > the core, and these photons do not go far before they are > absorbed. New photons are emitted - and absorbed. > It takes in the order of a million years for the energy > to get from the core to the surface of the star. > The star radiates its energy as a black body in > the photosphere. The temperature is what it has to be > to radiate as much energy as is produced in the fusion. There's also the issue of pressure -- which I'd not originally thought of applying to the problem. Crudely put, the star wants to contract to a point (or near point), whereas the fusion wants to explode. Things balance out just so, not unlike thermal equilibrium, though presumably harder to calculate. > > [..] > >>>So we have an invisible star with hundreds of solar masses. >>>Such stars do not exist. >> >> >> Black holes do. Admittedly, I for one would find a black >> hole nearly touching a glowing M1- or M2-mass star >> extremely unlikely without many highly noticeable effects, >> a la Cygnus X-1. >> >> I mention this mostly for completeness. > > Then think about this: > How could a 100 solar mass black hole be created? > When a black hole is created from a collapsing star, > its mass will be but few solar masses. > If such an animal exists, it certainly isn't as > a component of a binary. > (But who knows what may lurk in the centre of > some globular clusters?) Or for that matter at the center of galaxies? However, I think you're generally correct; if a 5 M_sun or so star is near a 100 M_sun or so black hole, it'll probably be ripped apart and eaten -- assuming that the black hole's creation explosion didn't simply disperse the gas of the companion star somehow in the first place. However, I'd have to look regarding said formation, and I know very little regarding the actual math beyond Chankdreksahr's Limit being about 1.5 M_sun. Considering that Cepheids are extremely plentiful and relatively uniform they can't be created in too weird a fashion; Ockham's Razor would have a fit. :-) The most logical from my standpoint is that there's more gas than our Sun formed out of, and therefore we get a more massive single star. > > But anyway - as you say - a 100 solar masses black > hole in the close vicinity of a Cepheid would make > it presence very obvious. I should think so, not because of anything the black hole per se is doing, but because space gets so curved the gasses swirl into the hole and get very hot. > >>>And you think you by repeating "puffing and blowing" over and over >>>can make it ridiculous that a standing wave has a stable period? :-) >> >> >> Who says they have a constant period anyway? I suspect they slowly >> change -- *very* slowly, but I don't have the theory handy -- >> as the hydrogen is converted to helium and the density/characteristics >> of the star gas change. > > The period is NOT constant for eternity. Cepheids are stars which > have left the main sequence and passes through the instability > strip of the HR-diagram on their way to their death. > But we are talking about millions of years on this journey, > so most Cepheids will appear very regular for the century or > so we have observed (some of) them. > Polaris is an exception - the last century happens to be the > time when it leaves the instability strip. It is hardly > a Cepheid any more. > >> At some point a Cepheid will, quite literally, run out of gas. >> (Just like all the others, only different. :-) ) > > See: > http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/courses/one/NOTES/Garry%20Pilkington/loc.htm Interesting, and slightly weird. But then, the Universe is normal; *we* are the weird ones (postulating at one point, for example, that the Sun orbited around the Earth and was carried by a chariot). > Specifically the animated figure showing a star's journey > from the main sequence to its death - passing through > the instability strip twice - and thus being a Cepheid twice. > > >>>The Cepheid RT Aurigae with period 3.72 days, have a maxum >>>surface velocity 17 km/s. The escape velocity is 200 km/s. >>>So why would there be "bits of gas flying everywhere"? :-) >> >> >> Well, there would be moving bits of gas, anyway. I'll admit to >> wondering whether we can detect the movement with a sufficiently >> sensitive spectroscope. > > Indeed we can. It is routine. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. My ignorance is considerable here, but it is nothing compared to someone else's... :-) > The pulsation is measured as a periodic variation in > the radial velocity of the star. > How did you think the surface velocity of RT Aurigae > cited above was measured? > http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html I'm not that familiar with spectroscopy so can't say of my own accord, but looks straightforward enough. > > Paul -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 12 Jun 2005 20:26 On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:33:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >> In sci.physics, Paul B. Andersen >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> >> wrote > >>>>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:01:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>> >>>>>A star is basically a spherical black body emitting >>>>>a black body spectrum. So the emitted power per surface >>>>>area is W = sigma*T^4, sigma = Stefan-Boltzmann constant. >>>>>When the temperature and emitted power is known, >>>>>the surface area and thus the diameter of the star can >>>>>be calculated. >> >> >> Assuming, of course, that a star is in fact a spherical >> thermal black body. (I'd say that's a fairly safe assumption, >> myself. :-) > >It will not be strictly spherical if it is rotating, >of course. > >> However, I'd have to look at what photons are >> emitted from the H -> He reaction, and it may depend on >> which cycle the star uses.) > >The fusion emits gamma radiation. But that happens in >the core, and these photons do not go far before they are >absorbed. New photons are emitted - and absorbed. >It takes in the order of a million years for the energy >to get from the core to the surface of the star. >The star radiates its energy as a black body in >the photosphere. The temperature is what it has to be >to radiate as much energy as is produced in the fusion. > >[..] > >>>So we have an invisible star with hundreds of solar masses. >>>Such stars do not exist. >> >> >> Black holes do. Admittedly, I for one would find a black >> hole nearly touching a glowing M1- or M2-mass star >> extremely unlikely without many highly noticeable effects, >> a la Cygnus X-1. >> >> I mention this mostly for completeness. > >Then think about this: >How could a 100 solar mass black hole be created? >When a black hole is created from a collapsing star, >its mass will be but few solar masses. >If such an animal exists, it certainly isn't as >a component of a binary. >(But who knows what may lurk in the centre of > some globular clusters?) > >But anyway - as you say - a 100 solar masses black >hole in the close vicinity of a Cepheid would make >it presence very obvious. Hahahahah! What do you think causes the brightness curve to be exactly as the BaT predicts for a large star orbiting a neutron star or WCH? > >>>And you think you by repeating "puffing and blowing" over and over >>>can make it ridiculous that a standing wave has a stable period? :-) >> >> >> Who says they have a constant period anyway? I suspect they slowly >> change -- *very* slowly, but I don't have the theory handy -- >> as the hydrogen is converted to helium and the density/characteristics >> of the star gas change. > >The period is NOT constant for eternity. Cepheids are stars which >have left the main sequence and passes through the instability >strip of the HR-diagram on their way to their death. >But we are talking about millions of years on this journey, >so most Cepheids will appear very regular for the century or >so we have observed (some of) them. >Polaris is an exception - the last century happens to be the >time when it leaves the instability strip. It is hardly >a Cepheid any more. > >> At some point a Cepheid will, quite literally, run out of gas. >> (Just like all the others, only different. :-) ) > >See: >http://www.astro.livjm.ac.uk/courses/one/NOTES/Garry%20Pilkington/loc.htm >Specifically the animated figure showing a star's journey >from the main sequence to its death - passing through >the instability strip twice - and thus being a Cepheid twice. > > >>>The Cepheid RT Aurigae with period 3.72 days, have a maxum >>>surface velocity 17 km/s. The escape velocity is 200 km/s. >>>So why would there be "bits of gas flying everywhere"? :-) >> >> >> Well, there would be moving bits of gas, anyway. I'll admit to >> wondering whether we can detect the movement with a sufficiently >> sensitive spectroscope. > >Indeed we can. It is routine. >The pulsation is measured as a periodic variation in >the radial velocity of the star. >How did you think the surface velocity of RT Aurigae >cited above was measured? >http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html Paul, have you ever sen a radial velocity curve from a star in elliptical orbit, with ecc~ 1.5-4 and the the right yaw angle to create brigthtnees curves according to BaT principles? > >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 12 Jun 2005 20:41 On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:13:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:17:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >> No it isn't. >> The companion stars are WCHs.... Very heavy.. >> >> You know there is a lot of dark matter in the universe. I'm telling you where >> it is. > >Yawn. >Sorry. >Your ridiculous claims are getting boring. Paul, Earth is about 100 solar diameters from the sun. The sun 'orbits the Earth' in one day. Something 40 times bigger orbiting every five days would not appear to move very quickly, as seen by an observer on Earth. If Jupiter was even five times larger, it would cause the sun, no matter how big it might become to orbit around the barycentre at quite a large radius. D Cep doesn't need a neutron star as its companion, at all. >>>>>>>Since I have actually learned a bit physics and astronomy, I am of course >>>>>>>brainwashed and am unable to recognize the obvious truth. >>>>>>>I am even gullible enough to accept the fact that Cepheids are pulsating stars. >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>No puffing and blowing ball of gas, particularly one that is 41 sun diameters >>>>in size could possibly maintain the same puffing frequency day after day, year >>>>after year to WITHIN SECONDS. >>> >>>And you think you by repeating "puffing and blowing" over and over >>>can make it ridiculous that a standing wave has a stable period? :-) >> >> >> Don't be ridiculous. >> If you were prepared to discuss my 'tidal distortion' theory, then you might >> have a periodic process that could be as stable as those observed. > >Yawn. It must be hard for any Norwegian to sleep. .......killing all our whales.... > >>>>You know that there would be bits of gas flying everywhere ..because it all >>>>happens every 5 days!!! >>> >>>No, I don't know that. >>>The Cepheid RT Aurigae with period 3.72 days, have a maxum >>>surface velocity 17 km/s. The escape velocity is 200 km/s. >>>So why would there be "bits of gas flying everywhere"? :-) >> >> >> Have you ever seen prominances shooting out from the surface of our sun? ..and >> it isn't even huffing and puffing. > >So prominances prove that standing acoustic waves >can't exist in stars. It proves that their frequencies would not remain stable to within 0.00000001% over twenty years. > >This one was at least a bit funny. :-) >Not very, though. >Ya..mm. > >>>>The only plausible explanation is that it is in synch with orbit frequency. >>>>..and that applies to ALL variable stars with highly regular periods. >>>> >>>>Now if you proposed some kind of regular distortion that was a direct >>>>consequence of the two stars coming close at their perihelions, then your >>>>'puffing and blowing' could be simply put down to huge tidal movements of gas. >>>>That might be acceptible ....it would add to any direct BaT effects and might >>>>explain some of the finer details of the brightness curves. >>> >>>You are funny, Henri. :-) >>>The two stars aren't only "close at their perihelions", >>>they are deep inside of each other. >>> >>>Get this into your head: >>>Their sizes make is utterly impossible that >>>Cepheids are binaries with orbital period >>>equal to their light curve period. >> >> >> Paul, I know from their light curves that the eccentricity of their orbits is >> between about 2 and 4. >> >> Do you not agree that tidal effects would be enormous when two heavy stars >> moved very close to each other at the perihelion. >> Maybe they would only be a few diameters away from each other. >> What strange shapes might a ball of gas take on? >> >> You can scream and rave as much as you like but at least this mechanism would >> explain the dead constant period. Huffing and puffing certainly cannot. > >Quite. >All you have to do to prove that Cepheids cannot be >pulsating stars is to call them "huffing and puffing". :-) > >You are really doing well now, Henri. :-) I think so too. You people are providing me with increasingly more evidence that the BaT is correct. > >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 12 Jun 2005 21:20
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:13:03 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:47fma1ha9gdb4g7ajn4b23bks676bqbn3j(a)4ax.com: > >> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:17:37 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:1olha1h8selgnqu9oaqjfe9ralmo5emsj8(a)4ax.com: >>> >>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 18:27:49 +0000 (UTC), bz >>>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>> two points. >>>> Once the critical distance is passed, multiple images form and the >>>> curves will make little sense. >>> >>>BaT multiple images have never been observed. >> >> Bz, there is a very simple reason for that. >> No telescope can resolve them because they only occur at very large >> distances. DeSitter's arguments concerning several close binaries were >> shown to be wrong. > >YOU invoked multiple images as the cause of the curves making little sense. >Then you turn around and argue against your own point. Make up your mind. > >By whom shown to be wrong? References? Multiple images should appear as occasional bright flashes. This kind of phenomenon is observed regularly. > >>>> The 'number of orbits sampled' must be >>>> increased in the program. >>>> The distances are generally pretty large when this happens and all >>>> kinds of interstellar influences might dampen the observed brightness >>>> fluctuations, Thermal source speeds are important and drastically >>>> reduce the size of brightness peaks. >>> >>>Perhaps reducing the BaT effect to zero. >> >> Predictions are that fluctuations are reduced in size as distance is >> increased. > >I predict that at any distance greater than 10 wave lengths, BaT will >appear to be negligible. You predict wrongly. In empty space, why would light speed change from c wrt the source to c wrt little planet Earth, ten billion LYs away? > >>>> The second point is that most of the very strange predicted curves >>>> belong to stars with high eccentricies >>> >>>I have seen some wierd curves with low eccentricity too. >>>0.1 ecc, max orb 0.00001 c, add distance 100x1000ly >> >> That kind of 'double peak' curve is actually quite common. >> There is a category named 'flare stars'. These are observed to emit a >> bright flash periodically. Many emit a double flash. >> The BaT provides the reason for this. > >BaT provides a reason for everything except why some things are not >observed more often and why superluminal/subluminal photons have never been >observed. They have. >>>Looking at the plots and the fit to those plots, 'dead on' is NOT the >>>way I would describe the period. >> >> I would. > >Get actual data points and plot them. Fit a curve to them. >Look at the estimated error. >'Dead on' is not the way I would describe the period. > >>>> However, if a binary pair is in orbit around a galactic centre, time >>>> compression will occur. The observed period might then exhibit a slow >>>> change. > >Very slow. On the order of hundreds of thousands of years. > > >>>> >>>> To see how Sekerin/Wilson time compression works, run that section of >>>> my program. >>> >>>Of which program? I don't see a time compression button. I see a time >>>expansion. >> >> I don't think I iincluded that in the source I sent you. You might have >> to look up the one on the website. > >I have several different versions I have downloaded from the website at >different times, in addition to the code you sent me. > >NONE have a time compression button. If you give me a clue as to where you >want me to look, I will be glad to look at it. the one on the website does. You will have to return to the start page. > >> This is the principle: >> Photons that are emitted during the 'concave' section of an orbit tend >> to bunch together as they travel through space. Thus all the information >> occuring in half an orbit period will arrive at an observer over a much >> shorter time span. For instance, if a binary pair is itself in a larger >> orbit around a third object, all the information from the larger half >> orbit can be compressed into a much shorter time. Thus the binary period >> might appear to be much storter than it actually is. > >>>> If the curve is known, I can tell you fairly accurately the Ecc, yaw >>>> and the ratio of distance/radial velocity. >>> >>>That might work, provided your predictions are verified as correct by >>>independent data. >>> >>>Simply saying the ecc, yaw, etc., are ..... is not enough. >>> >>>Much better, however, to be able to go the other way. >> >> I wouldn't agree. >> The BaT is a much better indicator of yaw angle than current methods. >> If maximum peripheral velocity can be ascertained using doppler, the BaT >> can reveal almost everything one wants to know. > >You had your yaw angles off by a large factor due to inverting the >brightness data. That's ok, it was the opposite. > >Even after correcting that, I predict that your guesses at yaw angles will >be no better than chance predictions of yaw angles. > >Only your very strong faith could have mistaken any yaw angles you derived, >with inverted brightness curves, for correct information. > >The fact that you were taking slow rise, rapid fall curves for confirmation >of rapid rise, slow fall data should cause you to stop, throw out >everything you have been thinking about BaT, and start over again. > >It didn't. That shows that faith is governing your thinking, not scientific >thought. Don't be silly bob. The program predicts D Cep's curve down to the finest details. >>>I see it. I don't see a reason to invoke a second star. >> >> All stars are in some kind of orbit around another star or larger body. > >The center of their galaxy, at least. So what? > >You are handwaving in order to hold onto your faith. You have been >attempting to support your theory that all cepheid variables are due to >binary star systems or single stars with eccentric orbits. Our sun is in a binary orbit with Jupiter. A distant observer might see the sun's brightness vary periodically by a considerable amount due to BaT effects alone. > >> My suggestion is that one hot and one cool star in a more eccentric >> orbit around each other would both experience large tidal effects when >> they were close. That could cause the stars to periodically appear >> larger and smaller, depending on the observer's position.. > >Many such binaries have been observed. > >They do not look like cepheid. They show dual doppler shifts. >As one star receeds, its light is redshifted. Meanwhile the other star >approaches and its light is blue shifted. > >This is clear, even when the stars can not be visually separated. For near circular orbits, the total brightness variation of one star can almost cancel that of theother. They are 180 out of phase. > >>>>>It is NOT MY wenbsite, stupid or othewise. >>>>>Your velocity/time curve looks like a sine wave. The radial >>>>>velocity/time curves of the cepheid variables do not follow a sine >>>>>wave. >>>> >>>> It is a sine wave for a circular orbit. It definitely does not look >>>> like a sine wave when an elliptical orbit is used. It looks just like >>>> the typical cephid one. >>>> Don't run from the truth. >>> >>>I have no fear of the truth. >>> >>>The blue curve looks like a sine wave for 0.2 eccentricity. >> But it isn't one. > >It does not look like a typical cepheid. > >>>The blue curve looks like a sine wave for 0.4 eccentricity. >> But it isn't one. > >It does not look like a typical cepheid. Yaw angle is not included here. I am about to do that to show Andersen that D Cep's velocity curve that of a star in elliptical orbit. > >>>The light curve at 0.2 ecc, -90 yaw looks a lot like a sine curve. >> the yaw angle is not a feature of this curve. > >It does not look like a typical cepheid. > >>>The light curve at 0.4 ecc, -90 yaw still looks a lot like a sine wave >>>but an asymetrical one. >> >> that's what an ellipse is. > >You said "It definitely does not look like a sine wave when an elliptical >orbit is used. It looks just like the typical cepheid one. > >The typical cepheid is a sawtooth with fast increase, slow decline in >brightness. > >Your program's predictions do not match what is seen in the heavens. You have seen it predict the exact curve of D Cep. It also predicts the exact curve of Algol type stars. > >>>> the desity throughout a huge gaseous star would be nothing like >>>> constant. The theory depends wholly on constant density. >>> >>>NO! The theory does NOT depend on constant density. >> >> Well that is what the reference said. > >Show me where the reference says the theory DEPENDS on a constant density. Read the paper you told ME to study. >>>Einstein's theories depend on his basic postulates. >>>In addition, he makes some simplifying assumptions that make the math >>>easier to follow. If you take away the postulates, you break his theory. >>>If you take away the simplifying assumptions, you make your math a lot >>>more complex, but the answers come out the same [in almost all cases, >>>and even in those the answers are almost the same]. >> >> Einstein's SR theory is just LET in disguise. >> >> I will start a new thread about this soon. > >Why bother? Your faith is strong. You won't look at anything that >challenges it. I'm not the only one who thinks so. >>>Accurate enough to organize stars on the HR diagram. >> >> Only if your faith is already firmly established. > >Faith is not required. Useful results is all that science requires. The HR >diagram gives useful results. > >You still don't understand that science is always questioning. It is NOT >based on faith. Well the BaT raises many questions. I have a new one to solve. If a star of a certain diameter and temperature supposedly emits radiation according to Stefan's law, what happens to that radiation if the escape velocity is very high? Take into account that the emitted light travels at c+v where v is thermal speeds of source molecules. The BaT says much of the light would fall back into the star and therefore the spectrum would probably be unlike a BB one. The light that DOES escape would be traveling at <c wrt the star and carrying energy according to its 'frequency' in the source frame. I have not worked out what happens to the energy when and if the light reaches a planet like Earth that has an atmosphere. There are other complications with the BaT predictions. The day/night surface temperature effect is very important.... and now I have to consider this 'tidal distortion' that must occur in highly eccentric orbits. > >>>>>> yes :) Although as the late Androcles pointed out, there is another >>>>>> stable point around an orbit where a second object could lie >>>>>> permanently. I cannot recall the name of the point. (Lagrange point >>>>>> maybe?) >>> >>>LaGrange points require 3 bodies. Two stars -->180 degrees apart. >> >> But the other star is about 60degrees around the orbit, I think. > >In the 3 body, LaGrange situation, there are 5 LaGrange points. Some are >stable points, some are not. > >http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html OK > >> The BaT predicted brightness curves would be rather complex. As well as >> there being three bodies, there would be an unusual phase relationship >> between the curves.. >> >>> >>>Yep LaGrange was sharp, he knew what the 'L' 'e was doin. >> >> more than Einstein. > >Einstein has the advantage of often having been tried, but never denied by >any experiment. Stars at Lagrange points could explain some of the brightness curves. Androcles was interested in these. He disappeared suddenly from this NG, you know. >>> >>>They have the data, you disregard the data. >>>BaT has been tested repeatedly. >>>Old experiments that invalidate BaT are repeated, with higher accuracy. >> >> That is not true bob. >> There was only one attempt to refute the BaT and that was later >> discredited. > >There have been thousands of attempts to refute c as a constant. >ALL have failed. > >The possible k for c'=c+kv has gotten smaller and smaller. Untill the light speed from a moving source is directly measured,(or compared) we wont know the truth. No past experiment is believable. Every one has ben performed by people desperate to find evidence that relativity is correct. > >>>The only way YOU can continue to believe in BaT is strong faith. >> >> Every piece of evidence supports it. > >It takes very strong faith to turn a lack of evidence into evidence. Ask any SRian. :) > >>>Show me superluminal photons (or subluminal ones in a vacuum) and I [and >>>the world of physics] will be happy to accept BaT. >> >> The speed of photons is relative, like all speeds. > >The speed of photons is c wrt all observers. No exceptions have ever been >observed. No supporting evidence is available either.. > >>>We can't accept it on faith, however. >> >> If a 'speed' is not defined relative to something, then it is NOT A >> SPEED. > >velocity. velocity is also relative. >>>> My program shows k=1 >>> >>>That is a problem as it is counter to current data. > >>>Right. Next version should allow comparison of results k=zero through >>>k=1. And allow inclusion/exclusion of Einstein's gamma. > >> Don't rave. > >how is that raving? k is 1 if the measuring apparatus has no moving parts. 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. |