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 16 Jun 2005 11:14 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in news:d8s1s6$lf3$1(a)dolly.uninett.no: > Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> New, important discovery. >> The curves will not change after the extinction distance in free space >> has been reached. All observers beyond that distance will see the same >> curves. From the discrepancy in RT Aur's real distance and that >> required by my program to produce the right shaped curves, I have been >> able to estimate its value at about 10LYs (at least in the direction of >> RT Aur.). > > !!!! :-) > >> This is good stuff....a major breakthrough I would say in all modesty. > > You ARE indeed a genius, Henri! :-) > > Paul, stunned I think 'dazed' is more likely. The noise from the drum beating can confuse the inner ears. -- 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 16 Jun 2005 16:47 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:07:30 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:lh21b15a2cffgj4b7uevuokgheoe506ete(a)4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:15:18 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:1equa11h11huqcdprcjmqbii6peeg00tg5(a)4ax.com: >>> >>>>>> 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 >>> >>>By the way, the above values are for delta Cep, NOT RT Aur. >>> >>>>> >>>>>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 just makes the orbiting stars model more impossible. >>> >>>But the max radial speed away from us (minimum) gets larger, so we >>>should see more subluminal photons than super luminal photons. >> >> Yes. >> I originally included in my program provision for the movement of the >> binary pair wrt Earth, but removed it because it doesn't affect the >> curve shapes, only the critical distances. > >Unless the relative motion of the pair is close to c, I think you are safe to >neglect it. > >> This star is considered to be moving away very rapidly, however we >> cannot even be certain of that figure. > >.... > >>>>>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. >>> >>>Henri, there is NO possible mass that a cepheid could be orbiting in >>>5.36 days and have a radial velocity of only 21 kms/sec. >> >> For RT Aur, it is 17 km/s > >The problem is that for any practicle size for the orgiting star(s), the >orbital velocity will be MUCH higher than either 21 or 17 km/s to orbit in >5.36 days (much less the 3.7 days that RT Aur shows). have you considered that the orbit plane might be nearly perpendicular to the LOS.....no! Radial velocity is the component in the observer direction. It is not the peripheral velocity. > >>>The larger the mass, the greater the orbit's diameter AND the greater >>>the orbital velocity. When M2 is 3e9 times M1, the orbital velocity >>>reaches c. With an orbital diameter of 1.5e10 km. >> >> You have something wrong there. > >Why do you say that? >You ran the numbers and you came out with different numbers? >You just don't like my numbers? >Perhaps you don't believe the formula for orbital period? >P=2 pi sqrt(a^3/(G*(M1+M2)) I do. I think it is only correct for M1>> M2. This is worth checking. Why don't you write a little program to plot elliptical orbits and see it is agrees. > >Which I solved for a >getting >a = 1/(2 pi) 2^(1/3) (P^2 G (M1+M2) pi)^(1/3) > >To get orbital velocity, I took the circumference over the period. > >You can approximate the perimiter(circumference for circle) as >2 pi sqrt((1/2)(a^2+b^2)) if you want. (less than 1% error for ecc < 0.40) > >I approximated it even more as (2 pi a) which works for small eccentricities. > >>>Obviously I have neglected to take into account the relativistic >>>increase in mass of the star with velocity. >> >> There isn't any. > >That depends on ones model. I am afraid that even you will need to admit that >it is difficult to get one star to orbit another at an orbital velocity > c. I don't see why. > >>>While working through some of these formula it became apparent to me >>>that your program lacks a very important feature: A 'sanity check'. >> >> Keep on fighting. >> But you cannot deny it produces exactly the curves of RT Aur. > >Until I can compare numbers to numbers, I can't be sure. > >> I have the proof, you are clutching at straws. > >Straws or telephone poles, it doesn't matter. >The program currently is internally inconsistent and allows inconsistent >parameters. > >>>The program needs to flag inconsistent values. >>> >>>The orbital velocity, the orbit's diameter, and the mass(es) of the >>>bodies involved, can NOT all be independent. >>> >>>Your program appears to assume that they are. I am sure there are other >>>sets of interdependent parameters that likewise need to be cross >>>checked. >> >> I am presently remodelling the program so it is easier to check and >> follow. > >Good! It has certainly been in need of such. > >> In the RT Aur paper, the note "the brightness maximum occurs at a phase >> 130 degrees before the maximum size of the star" agrees well with my >> curves. I am redefining the Yaw angles so some parts of the program will >> appear to disagree with others in this respect until I unify it all. > >Sometimes, I find it better to rewrite a program from scratch. Redesigning >from the ground up allow me to eliminate a lot of problem. > >>>This means that one can currently put in values for interdependent >>>parameters that are inconsistent with each other. >>> >>>This explains some of the weird looking curves your program produces. >> >> All curves beyoind the critical distance will appear weird. The is a >> reason for that. You must increse the number of ornits until there is a >> flat section in the middle of the curves. > >I think the problems are both simpler and deeper than that. > >>>When the user inputs two of the values, the program needs to calculate >>>the third and if that doesn't match what the user is specifying, the >>>program should flag the values to let the user know that they conflict >>>with each other. >> >> Like I said, the program is being improved. > >Good. > > >-- >bz > >please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an >infinite set. > >bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu 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: Paul B. Andersen on 16 Jun 2005 16:50 bz wrote: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:cer2b1p5vfuu0vktuch0ogqb2g8nhroqsl(a)4ax.com: > > >>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:43:41 +0000 (UTC), bz >><bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> > > .... > >>>Henri needs to include 'sanity checking' in his program, to make sure >>>the numbers are consistent. >>> >>>Currently, the program allows independent specification of values that >>>are not independent. >> >>New, important discovery. >>The curves will not change after the extinction distance in free space >>has been reached. All observers beyond that distance will see the same >>curves. From the discrepancy in RT Aur's real distance and that required >>by my program to produce the right shaped curves, I have been able to >>estimate its value at about 10LYs (at least in the direction of RT >>Aur.). > > > That may change with the yaw angle. > > {which would mean that you are not really seeing an extinction distance} > I am not sure that your program has any factors in it associated with > extinction. Therefore I am very suspicious of your conclusion. Isn't "very suspicious" a gross understatement? :-) > I think it is more likely that you are seeing the 'long term effects' of > some inconsistent values. > > Get those sanity checks built in and you may solve a lot of problems. When he has to insert wildly impossible parameters to make the program produce the desired curve, no further sanity check should be needed. It has already passed the insanity check with flying colours. BTW, didn't you understand why he had to make his "discovery"? Henri's program is basically a drawing program. By varying the input parameters it can produce different curves. If no restrictions are put on the parameters, just about any curve can be produced. But some of the input parameters are correlated. For example, if the distance is known, he can simply change the angle of the orbital plane. So he can make the same curve with any distance. But in this case he was deprived of the freedom of changing the angle of the orbital plane because that also changes the radial velocity, which he in this case wanted to be equal to the observed radial velocity of the star's surface. So the distance has to be 10 LY. But it isn't! So what does he do? "From the discrepancy in RT Aur's real distance and that required by my program to produce the right shaped curves, I have been able to estimate its [extinction length] value at about 10LYs (at least in the direction of RT Aur.)" Hilarious, no? :-) BTW, note the parenthetical remark. He realizes that he may need to change the "extinction length" to make his program "to produce the right shaped curves" for another Cepheid. But that's no problem, he can assign each star a separate extinction length because it may not be isotropic. So he has gained the freedom of assigning any distance to any star. It doesn't matter what the real distance is. From the discrepancy in star's real distance and that required by his program to produce the right shaped curves, he is able to estimate the extinction length for this particular star. Some discovery! :-) And what's most fantastic is that he is dead serious when he invent all this nonsense. How is that possible? THAT I will never understand. Henri's mind works in mysterious ways. :-) Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 16 Jun 2005 16:51 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:20:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> New, important discovery. >> The curves will not change after the extinction distance in free space has been >> reached. All observers beyond that distance will see the same curves. >> From the discrepancy in RT Aur's real distance and that required by my program >> to produce the right shaped curves, I have been able to estimate its value at >> about 10LYs (at least in the direction of RT Aur.). > >!!!! :-) > >> This is good stuff....a major breakthrough I would say in all modesty. > >You ARE indeed a genius, Henri! :-) I must be. My H-aether theory is well supported by this new evidence. Please give me some more star parameters so I can check the extinction length. It should be somewhat proportional to the initial radial velocity.. > >Paul, stunned Paul, you were stunned years ago. 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 16:56
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:00:33 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:cer2b1p5vfuu0vktuch0ogqb2g8nhroqsl(a)4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:43:41 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >.... >>>Henri needs to include 'sanity checking' in his program, to make sure >>>the numbers are consistent. >>> >>>Currently, the program allows independent specification of values that >>>are not independent. >> >> New, important discovery. >> The curves will not change after the extinction distance in free space >> has been reached. All observers beyond that distance will see the same >> curves. From the discrepancy in RT Aur's real distance and that required >> by my program to produce the right shaped curves, I have been able to >> estimate its value at about 10LYs (at least in the direction of RT >> Aur.). > >That may change with the yaw angle. > >{which would mean that you are not really seeing an extinction distance} >I am not sure that your program has any factors in it associated with >extinction. Therefore I am very suspicious of your conclusion. Why. The evidence is too striking to be mere coincidence. I have always had in my mind the problem of extinction as light tavels through space. That was, after all, the basis of the refutation of DeSitter's arguments against the BaT. Now I have the evidence. > >I think it is more likely that you are seeing the 'long term effects' of >some inconsistent values. > >Get those sanity checks built in and you may solve a lot of problems. Don't worry. The theory is all coming together. > >.... > >Anything which removes some of the problems from the program is good. It doesn't really have problems. ...complications maybe...Yaw angle is one. 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. |