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 18:18 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:klp3b11khrm3bhq2ajkfef1k0991ncnktf(a)4ax.com: > 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: ..... >>> 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. Because you don't seem to have anything built into your program that can give you 'an extinction distance' while you do seem to have many problems built into your program, any one of which may produce strange results because you don't have any 'sanity checks' built into the interdependent values. > The evidence is too striking to be mere coincidence. No. Throughout the history of science there have been MANY 'coincidences'. I can tell you from personal experience that it is very easy to missread evidence and get all excited over a 'new discovery' only to find out that one has either made a mistake or has rediscovered an old discovery. > 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. Calm down and look everything over very carefully before you go jumping to such conclusions. >>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. There are several problems associated with that 'complication'. -- 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 -- 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 18:38 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:50:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >bz wrote: >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:cer2b1p5vfuu0vktuch0ogqb2g8nhroqsl(a)4ax.com: >> >>>>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? :-) Unlike you, BZ doesn't have a completely closed mind. > >> 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. Indeed. and the plain fact is that just about all known variable star brightness curves can be simulated with the BaT model. ......Impressive, eh? >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? :-) Are you not aware that DeSitter's 'proof' against the BaT was refuted by Fox(?) on the basis of such extinction. Do you think I invented the idea? I have found a way to reasonably estimate how much extinction occurs over a certain distance. This can tell us a great deal about interstellar space. > >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. It isn't like that at all. If extinction distance is fairly uniform through out space, then the brightness curves of stars that have about the same radial velocities should reach the observed shapes at a similar distance. This is a good example of how real scientific experiments are made. > >Some discovery! :-) Your desperation is starting to show again. > >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. :-) The biggest mystery is why I waste so much time educating intransient people like you. > >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: bz on 16 Jun 2005 18:32 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:hco3b19rlge9s4ss0nhatfn5lpj75rbfjc(a)4ax.com: > 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: ...... >>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! That doesn't help the stars orbit faster. Try putting the correct orbital velocity in AND the KNOWN orbital roll values. > Radial velocity is the component in the observer direction. It is not > the peripheral velocity. There are two points on the orbit where radial velocity is equal to the component in the observers direction. The point of max velocity toward and max velocity away from are the points where the tangent to the eliplse points directly toward or away from the observer. At all other points, the radial velocity will be lower. >>>>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. Look at the formula again. The formula for M1>>M2 neglects to add the value of M2 because it won't make a difference. The formula I gave is for ANY values of M1 and M2. > This is worth checking. > Why don't you write a little program to plot elliptical orbits and see > if it agrees. I don't doubt the formula. ..... >>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. Look at the orbital parameters you would need to approach c. And, you have never argued that a particle with rest mass can reach c. Have you changed your idea? You are not going to claim that the 'Henri Reverse field' bubble will go away just because we are dealing with something that has the mass of a star, are you? -- 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 17 Jun 2005 02:43 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:32:06 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:hco3b19rlge9s4ss0nhatfn5lpj75rbfjc(a)4ax.com: > > >>>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! > >That doesn't help the stars orbit faster. >Try putting the correct orbital velocity in AND the KNOWN orbital roll >values. Take an orbit with a circumference of 300 million kms. To orbit once per day, the star would have to travel at 3E8/3E5/86400 which is about 0.012c To orbit every five days, 0.0023c Fast but very possible. You woudn't want to get in the way of one! > >> Radial velocity is the component in the observer direction. It is not >> the peripheral velocity. > >There are two points on the orbit where radial velocity is equal to the >component in the observers direction. The point of max velocity toward and >max velocity away from are the points where the tangent to the eliplse points >directly toward or away from the observer. > >At all other points, the radial velocity will be lower. Paul Andersen once defined the 'radial velocity' as the peripheral velocity component in the direction of the observer. Doppler shift measurements indicate radial velocity directly. > >>>>>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. > >Look at the formula again. > >The formula for M1>>M2 neglects to add the value of M2 because it won't make >a difference. > >The formula I gave is for ANY values of M1 and M2. The formula you gave it the same as the one for M1>>M2, in which case the larger star remains at one focus and the smaller one rotates in elliptical orbit. I don't see quite why the same applies when the barycentre constantly moves by a large amount, as it does when the stars are both about the same size. I'm not saying it is wrong, (Kepler didn't make many mistakes) I just want to fully understand how the shape of the orbit is affected. Maybe the velocity increase at the perihelion exactly compensates for the slowing at the aphelion. My program uses true elliptical orbits without asking any questions as to why there are as they are.. > >> This is worth checking. >> Why don't you write a little program to plot elliptical orbits and see >> if it agrees. > >I don't doubt the formula. fair enough. >>>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. > >Look at the orbital parameters you would need to approach c. See above. > >And, you have never argued that a particle with rest mass can reach c. >Have you changed your idea? > >You are not going to claim that the 'Henri Reverse field' bubble will go away >just because we are dealing with something that has the mass of a star, are >you? No. not with stars. One was probably captured by the other. or one large one broke into two pieces. Incidentally, my program 'threebody.exe' shows how captures occur. They require a third body, otherwise the captured one either flies off again or ends up colliding with the other. So it is quite feasible that a star could end up rotating around another with a velocity <c. 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: David Evens on 17 Jun 2005 04:40
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:26:40 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 05:34:35 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> >wrote: >>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: > >>>>| >>>>| 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. >> > >Evens I wont take up much of your time because I know you must have constant >treatment for your - er- 'deficiency'. > >The BaT predictions for gravitational redshift are the same as those of GR. >Light accelerates down a gravity well just like ordinary matter. Of course, GR predicts it, while you just have it happen for no reason at all. >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. |