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 13 Jun 2005 03:51 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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 >> >>>>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? The fairies of Wonderland? Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 13 Jun 2005 04:23 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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: Delta Cep: period = 5.366270 days radius = 41.6 solar radii mass = 5 solar masses If we assume a large mass with zero diameter is orbiting Delta Cep, skimming its surface, its mass would have to be 28 solar masses. If we allow the companion it a little space, assuming the distance between their centres to be twice the radius of the Cepheid, its mass would have to be 260 solar masses. >>>> So we have an invisible star with hundreds of solar masses. >>>> Such stars do not exist. >>>> The most massive stars are in the order of 50 solar masses. >>>> Their luminocity is in the order of 500000 times the Sun. >>>> They would be brighter than the Cepheid. >>>> >>>> In other words, it is utterly impossible that >>>> Cepheids are binaries with orbital period >>>> equal to their light curve period. >>>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. OK. I am retracting my statement. Your ridiculous claims are not boring at all, quite the contrary, they are very entertaining. All we have to do to make Delta Cep orbit another star in five days is to let the other star rotate once in five days, and view it from the other star. Keep it up! You are doing better all the time, Henri. :-) Paul, not bored
From: Paul B. Andersen on 13 Jun 2005 04:29 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:13:03 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: >>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. You mean the flashes the BaT predicts should be in the light curve of the binary HD80715 are observed regularly? Paul
From: bz on 13 Jun 2005 04:47 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:jtkpa1hu4tuk4ik1dtp62t42ro69d82jde(a)4ax.com: > Paul, Earth is about 100 solar diameters from the sun. > > The sun 'orbits the Earth' in one day. ??? The earth rotates on its axis in one day. The sun does NOT orbit the earth any more than the entire universe orbits the earth every 24 hours. -- 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: bz on 13 Jun 2005 05:50
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:bjlpa1t21o9f0c6j4ij14urc3ij1a2nlr8(a)4ax.com: > 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: ..... >>>>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? By whom have DeSitters arguments been shown to be wrong? > Multiple images should appear as occasional bright flashes. This kind of > phenomenon is observed regularly. Multiple images should show up as separately doppler shifted images. These can be see even when separate images can not be seen. spectroscopic binaries show doppler shifts for both stars. http://astro.ph.unimelb.edu.au/central/Mirrors/binary/binary.htm http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/astro101/java/eclipse/eclipse.htm http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/astronomy/doppler/doppler.html ..... >>>>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? Because, any time I propose an experiment to detect BaT, you say it won't work because of EM FoR or some other Wilson effect. I am just extrapolating from the trends. You keep rejecting possible experiments. So I am saying that eventually we will have eliminated all accessable ways of testing and will be left to conclude that after 10 lamda, BaT will be undetectable. We need a way to test BaT that can be done here. Not 100 LY away. ..... >>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. They would have been reported. ..... >>>>> To see how Sekerin/Wilson time compression works, run that section ..... > the one on the website does. You will have to return to the start page. Ah. on the START page. ok. found it. Will look. ..... >>You had your yaw angles off by a large factor due to inverting the >>brightness data. > > That's ok, it was the opposite. ..... > > Don't be silly bob. The program predicts D Cep's curve down to the > finest details. Doesn't it bother you that you accepted the wrong data? >>>>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. http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/planets.html The jupiter/sun barycenter is 1.06 solar radii from the center of the sun. http://www.viewzone.com/paper03.html. >>> 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. The doppler shifts are still clear. BaT says there should be brightness variation. ..... >>>>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. go for it. >>>>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. I have seen it predict wrong curves too. >>>>> 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. I have. Where does is say the theory DEPENDS on a constant density? >>>>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. Most religions have many followers. >>>>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. This is the first time you have admitted to any. So far you have been claiming BaT ANSWERS all the 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. You are talking about near black hole sized stars and black holes. > 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. Superluminal photons slowing down as they interact with matter makes a lot more sense than Subluminal photons speeding up as they interact with matter. Your BaT stars send subluminal photons toward the earth. Either 1) they never make it to the surface 2) they gain speed 3) they are still traveling subluminal (and should then be detectable) Remember my 'catch some slow photons' question? > 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. Your faith is strong. I know nothing of Androcles. >>>>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. Read the history of science again. Many experimentors were despirate to find evidence of aether. They kept failing. http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Logan/Poetry/CHAPTER11- 12.html >>>>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. :) I asked a BaTer. Every answer twisted facts to support his religion. >>>>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.. Every observation made, so far, is supporting evidence. >>>>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. Right. Every measurement is made WRT some FoR. SR says that light moves at c wrt all possible observer FoRs. No exceptions have ever been found. >>>>> 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. Now THAT is raving! -- 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 |