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: EL on 16 Jun 2005 05:56 Paul B. Andersen wrote: > 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 [EL] Indeed. :-) EL
From: Paul B. Andersen on 16 Jun 2005 06:44 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. Of course, Henri. We can all see from their spectra that all Cepheids are heavily red shifted. It would be too idiotic to claim they were, if their spectra told otherwise, wouldn't it? For example, the red shift of RT Aur is z = 0.00007! See? Heavily red shifted indeed! But since there obviously is a LARGE mass present, why did you then say: | 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. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Jun 2005 07:52 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:43:25 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >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> Evens, you are a waste of space. 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 16 Jun 2005 08:01 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:44:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:14:14 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>| 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. > >Of course, Henri. >We can all see from their spectra that all Cepheids are heavily red shifted. >It would be too idiotic to claim they were, if their spectra told otherwise, >wouldn't it? > >For example, the red shift of RT Aur is z = 0.00007! Absorption lines? >See? >Heavily red shifted indeed! Emission spectrum. > >But since there obviously is a LARGE mass present, why did you then say: >| 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. > >Paul Incidentally, I plugged in 1200LY distance and 0.00005c max velocity for RTAur. The curves fit exactly. Now when I change the period to 0.11 years, that distance is way past the critical one. When the distance is reduced to about 10 LYs, the program again produces RTAur's curves. Conclusion: The extinction distance experienced by light from RT Aur is about 10 LY. Beyond that, the speed of light emitted at different parts of the orbit, in the direction of Earth, is unified. This is how scientific discoveries are made, 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 16 Jun 2005 08:08
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:03:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >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? :-) From that data I have now discovered that the extinction distance for light in free space is about 10LYs. In other words, that is the distance that can be set for all stars in my program. The BaT effect disappears at about 10 LYs. I will check that with other stars. Let's start with HD80715. Isn't it good to be making scientific history? > >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. |