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: bz on 13 Jun 2005 08:45 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in news:d8jfph$69r$1(a)dolly.uninett.no: >> 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. Henri must have been sleep-browsing the internet. Perhaps the Henri instantanious universe (HIU) adds a new type of relativity, equating all FoRs, even rotating FoRs. Doing away with the absolute FoR with respect to rotation is REALLY gonna shake up the physics world, isn't it? -- 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: Henri Wilson on 13 Jun 2005 19:02 On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:23:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >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. :-) You apparently have no idea how two stars orbit each other. But I have good reason to laugh. Just run my program again and see how it produces the exact characteristics of RT Aurigae. I have set the parameters to the right values. Run the distance to about 130-140 LYs. Then compare what you see with the reference you provided: http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html HoHoHohahahahaha! Who gets the last laugh, hey, Paul? > >Paul, not bored 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 13 Jun 2005 19:09 On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:47:29 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. Bob, Did you notice the ' ' ? I was merely trying to provide a visual impression of an object orbiting another once per day. A large object orbiting every five days, eg D Cep, would move a lot slower than that. The sun orbits the Earth/sun barycentre once per year. It also orbits the Jupiter/sun barycentre once per Jupiter year. If the sun had a large close companion, the two would orbit the barycentre at the common period. > > 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 13 Jun 2005 19:12 On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:29:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >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? That has been explained to you a thousand times. Now....... HoHoHohahahahaha! Please compare the BaT predictions for RTAur with your reference: Just run my program again and see how it produces the exact characteristics of RT Aurigae. I have set the parameters to the right values. Run the distance to about 130-140 LYs. Then compare what you see with the reference you provided: http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html Note: the distance setting does not have to be accurate to produce this curve. It is the shape that matters. HoHoHohahahahaha! Who gets the last laugh, hey, Paul? > >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 13 Jun 2005 19:39
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:50:20 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:bjlpa1t21o9f0c6j4ij14urc3ij1a2nlr8(a)4ax.com: > >>>> 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. Believe it or not, that is not correct. Even Paul will agree. After two images are formed spontaneously, they both appear to move away from the observer at about the same speed. > >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 That's a different matter altogether. A 'multiple image' is a double image of just one of the stars. > >.... >>>>>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. Thanks to Paul, we now have all the evidence we need. Just run my program again and see how it produces the exact characteristics of RT Aurigae. I have set the parameters to the right values. Set the distance to about 130-140 LYs using 'pause/ restart'. Then compare the brightness curves with the reference Andersen provided: http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html HoHoHohahahahaha! Now can you see that the BaT is correct. >.... >>>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? It now produces RT Aur exactly. It also produces Algol type curves perfectly. > >>>>>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. But if jupiter was 5 times larger and a lot closer.....? > >>>> 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. I have now included the radial velocity curve with yaw angle. .. >>>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. Well I now have convincing evidence that it predicts correctly, thanks to Paul. >>>density. >> >> Read the paper you told ME to study. > >I have. Where does is say the theory DEPENDS on a constant density? Near the start, before it does the equations. >>>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. I was.... but not necessarily. Even if the escape velocity was only about 0.1c this still has to be explained. > >> 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. They can speed up , just as easily as slow down. It depends on the relative speed (wrt source) of whatever they are negotioting. > >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? Yes I'm still thinking about this. >> >> 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. He was a keen supporter of the BaT. So was John Kennaugh but he has dissappeared too. >> >> Ask any SRian. :) > >I asked a BaTer. Every answer twisted facts to support his religion. Just run my program again and see how it produces the exact characteristics of RT Aurigae. I have set the parameters to the right values. Set the distance to about 130-140 LYs using 'pause/ restart'. Then compare the brightness curves with the reference Andersen provided: http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html HoHoHohahahahaha! Who gets the last laugh, hey? > >>>>>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. No support has ever been found you mean. 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. |