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 14 Jun 2005 19:23 On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:21:10 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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: >>> >>>> >>>>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. > >Quite. >I can obviously not compete with your superior ideas >of how 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. > >Quite. >And one of the right values is that it is orbiting >an invisible giant >100 solar masses. >Could it be a massive fairy? >They ARE invisible, you know. > >> Run the distance to about 130-140 LYs. > >It does of course not matter that you have got >the distance wrong by a decade. >It is not as if your fantasy parameters have anything with >reality to do. The distance used here doesn't matter. It is conjugate with radial velocity and other factors. Only the shapes of the curves matter. > >> Then compare what you see with the reference you provided: >> http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html > >Since you have an infinite set of fantasy parameters >to chose from, I do not doubt that your program will >produce the correct light curve. >That all the parameter sets producing the right light curve >are physically impossible does obviously not matter. I had a wager with bz that you wouldn't even want to look at the BaT predictions. You know I am right...and I now have indisputable proof....which you provided. > >> HoHoHohahahahaha! >> Who gets the last laugh, hey, Paul? > >You, obviously. > >You are still laughing at the beautiful way you >refuted my claim that it is physically impossible >for a Cepheid to be a binary with orbital period >equal to the variation period, are you not? > >"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. That is correct. It would NOT APPEAR TO MOVE VERY QUICKLY AROUND THE ORBIT. I was merely ponting out that something orbiting you every five days would not appear to be moving very rapidly, no matter how close it was. > 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." You have confused the issue by taking my statement out of context...but you are an expert at wriggling out of awkward situations by employing such tactics. Jupiter is about 1/1000 the mass of the sun. It could be 100 times heavier and still orbit the sun at a similar radius. The sun would also wobble around the barycentre annually by a signicant amount. No matter what size a star is, it can still orbit something a lot heavier, such as a neutron star or WCH...and with a <5 day period. You reference to RT Aurigae makes intereseting reading. It emphasises the extremes to which SRians will go in order to explain anything with Einsteiniana. The paper simply doesn't add up. The maximum brightness occurs 36% of a cycle before the the star's maximum size. That is even before the median radius. You say these stars emit huge amounts of radiation because they are very large. Apparently they emit a lot more when they are near ninimum size. What a joke! Cepheids are obviously Large stars orbiting some kiind of WCH with an eccentricity of 0.2-0.35. They also have a common yaw angle range. > >So keep laughing, Henri. >Your genial refutation deserves it. I am still laughing at the fact that you cannot recognize the radial velocity curve of a star in elliptical orbit. RT Aur has exactly that kind of curve. You know what you can do with your 'choo choo' stars. > >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 14 Jun 2005 19:32 On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:53:16 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:p1fsa1pt24bmi2c83ha9t314o9pm1snhdf(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 did, but you were talking about a star orbiting in 5 days, implying >>>that was possible because the sun orbited the earth in 24 hours. >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>>Your image failed because to orbit in 24 hours, the sun would have had >>>to be in synchronous orbit altitude at 22,235 miles. Which would kinds >>>scorce my grass. >> >> Orbit diameter depends on the mass of the other object. >> >> Bob, my only concern was the apparent rate of movement, the angular >> velocity of something in a 1 day orbit. The sun doesn't appear to move >> very fast. > >The apparant angular velocity due to OUR rotation can not be counted. A 24 >hour orbit will be at a radius of 22,235 miles. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period >The orbital period depends on the masses involved, the semi major axis, and >the universal constant G. >P=2 pi sqrt(a^3/(G(M1+M2))) > >solving for 'a' gives >a=1/(2 pi) 2^(1/3) (P^2 G(M1+M2) pi)^(1/3) > >With the mass of the sun as 1.9891E+30*kg and the mass of the earth >5.9742E+24*kg, a 24 hour orbit is at 2.928E+6*km and the diameter of the >sun is 1.392E+6*km, so it would be theoretically possible for the earth to >orbit the sun in 24 hours. It would need to move at 213 km/s (7.1E-4 c) >(assuming a circular orbit) in order to do so > >But two stars the mass of the sun would have to orbit each other at 3.6E6 >KM at 268 km/s (8.9e-4 c). Look Bob, I am genuinely sorry for causing this confusion. I thought you had more brains that Andersen. I was merely pointing out that ANYTHING orbiting YOU once per day would appear to move at the same angular velocity as our sun (or moon) does as it APPEARS TO 'orbit' us. This was purely to illustrate the visual impression and had nothing to do with the maths of different sized objects. > >> Use the moon if you want to be happy about it. It moves at about the >> same angular speed. > >Not at all, it orbits in 28 days. You MUST separate the apparent motion due >to the earths rotation. The earths rotation must be disregarded. To somebody standing on Earth, it still APPEARS to move across the sky at about the same speed as the sun. Do you dispute 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. >>> >>>Provided the orbits were circular or close thereto. >> >> No, the period would be the same for both, no matter what the >> eccentricity.. > >correct. > >> I want to know more about the orbit shape though. 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 14 Jun 2005 19:33 On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:38:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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. > >Quite. >And this obviously explains how the 40 solar diameter delta Cep >and a star which hasn't got to be a neutron star at all, >can orbit their barycentre in the common period five days. The other star is some kind of WCH....just like the one near RT Aur. > >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 14 Jun 2005 19:38 On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:55:47 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in >news:d8mj45$ocm$1(a)dolly.uninett.no: > >> Henri Wilson wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Quite. >> And this obviously explains how the 40 solar diameter delta Cep >> and a star which hasn't got to be a neutron star at all, >> can orbit their barycentre in the common period five days. >>>Delta Cep: >>>period = 5.366270 days >>>radius = 41.6 solar radii >>>mass = 5 solar masses > >two stars of 5 solar masses would orbit at 1.9e7 km >41.6 solar radii is 2.8e7 km, which, as you have noted, is larger in than >the orbital radius. So the stars would merge. > >In fact, in order for one to skim the surface (assuming zero radius for >it), it would have to have a mass of 5.72 times the mass of delta Cep: > >This gives an orbital velocity of 268 km/s or 1.3e-3c > >I figure you need a very heavy black hole of at least 50 times the mass of >Delta Cep. That gives a separation of 1.96 radii, orbital velocity of 771 >km/s or 2.5e-3 c > >All of these present a small problem, however, as the actual doppler data >figures for RT Aurigae show a maximum velocity of 38 km/sec. At 38 km/sec, >there is no way for the two stars to maintain orbit and they will fall into >each other. That velocity figure is confusing. The RT Aur system is moving away from Earth at 21 kms/sec..so you must subtract that. The maximum radial speed is only 17km/s. > >That will make a big splash and, I fear, swamp Henri's model. There is known to be a lot of dark matter in the universe. Apparently, much of it has cepheids orbiting around. 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 14 Jun 2005 19:42
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:29:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:29:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> That has been explained to you a thousand times. >> >> Now....... HoHoHohahahahaha! > >And what the explanation is that your program >doesn't work for real binaries where the orbital >parameters are measured? :-) It works perfectly. > >> 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 > >.. but you insist that your program does works for imaginary >binaries where you have invented the orbital parametres in >such a way that the the Cepheid is orbiting a star within itself? >Some program, eh? :-) You haev sasked me to show how the program predicts from actual figures. Just compare the predictions for RT Aur with the curves you provided. >> >> 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? > >A babbling idiot? ] Running the program is quite easy. Are you afraid of losing you faith? > >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. |