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 16 Jun 2005 05:03 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:43:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I see. >>And the one time you tried to enter actual data >>into your program it predicted that the binary HD80715 >>should be a variable. >>It isn't. > > > That was explained 573 times to you. Quite. And your explanation was that so many weird things happen to the light on it's way from the star to the observer, that it is impossible to say what the BaT predicts the light curve should look like. Therefore you program doesn't show what the BaT predicts the light curve should look like when you enter the real, measured orbital parameters for a binary like HD80715 into it. > Now we have an exact fit with a RT Aur. What do you say about that? I say that considering all the weird things that happen to the light on it's way from the star to the observer, it is amazing that your program is able to show what the BaT predicts the light curve from a fantasy binary with physical impossible orbital parameters should look like, but not is able to show what the BaT predicts the light curve of a known binary with measured orbital parameters should look like. > > Incidentally, how many LYs in a parallex second? 3.26. >>>>>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. >> >>Indeed I have. >>So what are the "actual data" for RT Aur you entered into your program? >>How was those "actual data" measured? > > > What is its distance from us? 1400 - 1500 LY. Now you can make up the rest of your "actual data" to make your program "predict" the observed light curve. Right? :-) Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 16 Jun 2005 05:20 Henri Wilson wrote: [to "bz"] > > You should be careful. You will end up like Andersen if you keep this up. > Quite. Eating of The Tree of Knowledge may indeed lead to that awful fate. You have nothing to fear, though. Paul, the snake
From: David Evens on 16 Jun 2005 05:30 On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:00:06 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:10:41 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> >wrote: >>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >><ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >>>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. >> >>As was previously noted, you don't GET any stars that can colapse to >>form a 100-solar mass black hole, because it is phsically impossible >>for stars heavy enough to do so to form. The maximum mass for a star >>is somewhere between 30 and 50 solar masses. It has been determined, >>as well, that even the most massive stars blow off HUGE portions of >>their matter when they collapse into black holes. A 30-solar mass >>star, for instance, colapsing into a black hole blows off the >>equivalent of an entire solar mass just as gamma rays. (This is what >>we finally know to be the source of gamma ray bursts, and we can >>consider ourselves fortunate to not have any such superheavy stars in >>the immediate neighbourhood, since one of these going of with a few >>tens kiloparsecs is a bad day for the homeworld.) > >All these figures are based on Einsteinina and are therefore to be taken with a >grain of salt. Since all familair with astronomy know that stellar formation is not modelled with Einsteinian tools (Newtoniam mechanics are perfectly adequate in terms of accuracy, and much simpler computationally) thois pretense of yours can only be taken as proof of ignorance. >I have discovered a new ttype of dark star, the Wilson,Cool,Heavy (WCH) Yes, a star that, somehow, is not subject to heating from all the matter impacting it at immense speed. >Keep well away if you see one Evens. I will certainly keep well away from any of your halucinations. >>>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 > > >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: David Evens on 16 Jun 2005 05:34 On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:27:48 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:14:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" ><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> 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. >> >>It's always entertaining to see Henri trying to >>explain why his giant blunders are no blunders. :-) >> >>The context is that I pointed out the fact that if >>a mass with zero diameter was orbiting delta Cep, >>skimming its surface, the mass had to be 28 solar masses. >> >>To refute this fact, Henry 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. >> >>Note the conclusion. >>The star Delta Cep is orbiting doesn't have to be very massive at all. >> >>Henry will of course now claim that when he said that D Cep >>didn't need to orbit a neutron star, he didn't mean that >>the star didn't have to be very massive, but that it can be >>another kind of very heavy massive - like a dark matter star. >> >>Because he will never admit that he made the blunder everybody >>can see that he did. >> >>Will you Henri? :-) >> >>Paul, enjoing the show > >Paul, as the idiot Evens just pointed out, all the light leaving the system is >heavily redshifted by the large mass present. The plain fact is, D Cep and the >like are much hotter and smaller than Einsteiniana has led astrophysicists to >believe. What post are you pretending I made that says anything remotely like that, Wilson The Fraud? In a recent posting, you made a completely incorrect statement about gravitational red shifting, a process you have already flatly rejected as not happening in your 'model' to begin with, but I never said anything about such an object producing large red shifts. Of course, this was in the post where I pointed out that massive, cold bodies of that size don't form by the processes of stellar formation. >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: David Evens on 16 Jun 2005 05:43
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:03:56 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 05:12:11 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> >wrote: >>On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:26:23 GMT, H@..(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 >>>>>>>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? >> >>Not the BaT, since it ignores the effect such a massive body would >>have on the gases being emitted from the visible star and the >>radiation that would be released as these gasses were, inevitably, >>trapped by its more massive companion. > >Evens don't come in here swinging!!! What, don;' you like being hit up the side of the head with reality? >I already informed Paul that this was likely to happen and the stars were >really a lot hotter and smaller than they appeared. The whole spectrum would >be considerably redshifted. Yes, likely making all the gamma rays your 'model' requires the production of but doens't acknowledge rather easier to detect. >>>>>>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 never done is prove Einstein wrong. > > >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong. |