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: David Evens on 18 Jun 2005 04:46 On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:48:47 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:40:21 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> >wrote: >>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> > >>>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. > >Evens, a word of warning. >Never try to take your drugs through airport security. And you are callilng yourself by my name because...?
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Jun 2005 19:35 On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:53:57 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:pma6b1lbiae680kblpfiec2n21i87knk7h(a)4ax.com: > >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:51:25 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:u6q4b11bluqsrp2phed5l457df9ie0oc4g(a)4ax.com: > >>>>>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! > >>>I don't find a self consistent set of answers for these values. >>>What masses are you using, eccentricity, major & minor axis, etc. > >> I'm assuming the central mass is >> than the orbiting one and that the >> orbit is roughly circular. In that case, the orbit radius is almost >> independent of mass. > >> Our sun has a radius of 0.7E6 kms and is around 150 million kms away. >> The surface of a star 40 times larger than our sun and moving in a >> circular orbit of circumference 314 million kms would still be about 22 >> million kms from the centre of the circle. > >You said the eccentricity is 0.25, that is NOT circular. > >>>(I get strange results, like a & b each > the perimeter, which is, of >>>course, impossible. The radius can't be greater than the circumference. >>>This probably means that some values are going imaginary on me.) > >> Check your figures. >> Use a circumference of 314 million kms. > >I get a=.38 AU, b=.285 AU, M1=16.49 sol, M2=54.905 sol for a perimeter 2.1 >AU (314 Mkm) 5 day orbit > a=0.376 AU, B=0.285 AU, M1=17.97 sol, M2=110.45 sol, same perimeter, >a 3.728 day orbit. >But, as I said, these values are not self consistent. There are many other >combinations of values that would give similar values. they depend entirely on the values of the masses...assuming that G is constant...and we can't even be sure of that. >>>> I don't see quite why the same applies when the barycentre constantly >>>> moves by a large amount, >>> >>>The barycentre does NOT move. You see the stars motions wrt the >>>barycentre. >> >> I didn't actually doubt it. I just want to understand more clearly why, >> for a particular orbit shape, stars of similar size have twice the >> period of a very small object orbiting a much larger one. > >If the total mass is the same, the period should be the same. Yes. Interesting.. > >>>The earth/moon barycentre follows an eliptical orbit around the sun. >>>The earth and moon orbit that barycentre so the earths orbit around the >>>sun 'wiggles' every 28 days. >> >> Yes, the barycentre follows a cycloidal path. > >NO! The barycentre follows an eliptical path. > >The EARTH's center follows a cycloidal path as does the Moon's center. Sorry, yes, of course.That's really what I meant to say. >> >> I want to plot how orbit shape and velocity changes as the mass of M1 is >> increased from <<M2 to =M2. > >The orbital SHAPE doesn't change. > >The period changes by 1 over the sqrt of 2 because you double the total >mass. Yes, all ellipses with the same eccentricity have the same shape by definition but as M1 is increased wrt M2, the relatives size of the two orbits changes accordingly. > >>>> My program uses true elliptical orbits without asking any questions as >>>> to why there are as they are.. >>> >>>and without any checking to see if all the values are consistent with >>>each other. Making for some very strange looking light curves, at times. > >> No. We know that the two members of a binary pair are in elliptical >> orbits of the same eccentricity. There phase is 180 out. The ratio of >> major axes is proportion to M1/M2. (CMIIW) > >That isn't what I am talking about. >Your program doesn't cross check values against each other. That means you >can have inconsistent parameters. I have explained that distance and other factors are mutually interdependent. The situation stands like this. Using the BaT principles, just about all variable star light curves can be simulated. The radial velocity of cepheids is exactly that of a star in elliptical orbit with e=~0.25. The phasing betweeen brightness and velocity agrees with the BaT (although there is some work to be done here). The periods of most variable stars is extremel;y constant over many years. In spite of this, the curves of many individual stars do not always match those predicted for the assumed star distances. I have no doubt now that the BaT IS responsible for much star variability. I now have to explain why the discrepancies occur. Like I said, it appears to suggest that extinction takes place over about 10 LYs and the speeds of all the light becomes pretty uniform after that. I accept that I could be completely wrong about this and there could be other reasons....but it is a start. > >>>>>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. >>> >>>as long as you say <c, I agree. >> >>:~) >> Genuine typo!!!!!!!!! >> I meant >c > >"Show me a star" [moving faster than c]. >The quote is from a SF story by Harlan Ellison. 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 18 Jun 2005 19:39 On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 04:45:47 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 06:43:25 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>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! > >Indeed, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a system with a mass of >between 1300 and 1400 solar masses (according to Kepler's 3rd Law). >That's for the slow orbit. For the fast one, the required mass goes >up to over 34000 solar masses. > Evens, have you ever seriously considered having a lobotomy? ........ from ear to ear, prefereably. 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 18 Jun 2005 19:43 On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:58:17 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:lm96b199tjo6mcc2d36gsslujs7blthgpe(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. >> >> Bob, no telescope can resolve any of these binaries. They resemble small >> dots, even on HST. The only info we have is their radial velocities from >> doppler shift. The 'roll' is not known. (deviation from 'edge-on') >> >> >>> >>>> 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. >> >> That is correct. >> These are where the maximum c+v and minimum c-v occur. For any >> particular ellipse, the values depend on the yaw angle. >> 'Roll' just applies a cosine factor to thes values. >> >>> >>>At all other points, the radial velocity will be lower. >> > >> NO!!! >> It's lowest value is c-v. >> > >I should have said 'closer to the average' rather than 'smaller'. > >> There are also two points where the radial velocity is zero towards the >> observer. The lightspeed is then c. > >That depends on the average relative velocity of the star wrt earth. There >may be no 'zero' radial velocity point. Yes. As with RT Aur. Any additional system movement just changes the critical distance. It doesn't affect the brightness curve shapes. I deleted it from my program. > >> You can see this in the 'lightfront' section of my program. Two points >> on the curves remain at the same relative positions. (allow for the >> initial slope) > >I understand your point. > >.... > > >-- >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: Henri Wilson on 18 Jun 2005 20:11
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:08:05 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:chc6b15452se3bmfp7ksok4ge39vv8mi67(a)4ax.com: > >> >> The brightness curves that are generated can be seen to match the >> lightfon curves exactly. A brightness peak will occur at points where >> the lightfront curve is vertical. You can see how many multiple images >> are expected at a particular distance. > >Multiple images does not equate to extinction. No..but early extinction will prevent mupltiple images from even appearing. > >> .....but now I have good evidence that extinction kicks in and unifies >> the speed of all the light leaving the star. That might occur within >> about ten LYs. > >That is how you are interpreting the curves, not what they show. Bob, I have exactly matched RT Aur's velocity and brightness curves using precise BaT principles. Trouble is, the predicted distance is way out...or the radial velocity is completely wrong, which is less likely. So my conclusion is that the light speeds become unified as they travel through space. That concept just happens to be a feature of my H-aether theory too.. >>>> 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. >> >> Bob, doesn't the fact that so many light curves can be matched by the >> BaT make you wonder even slightly? > >I am still trying to help you, arn't I? Yes and I appreciate that. >> Contrary to what the desperate Andersen claims, my program cannot >> produce any curve I want. > >It can come very close. Think about that Bob. The program allows you to see the relative positions of 30000 (or 60000) light pulses emitted around an orbit, as they travel. The pulses move at c+v where v is the star's insantaneous radial velocity at the time of emission. > >> It is based solely on how slow slight emitted >> from a precise elliptical orbit will be overtaken by faster light. The >> maths are mainly double precision. It is a very accurate representation >> of what should happen. > >But you are interpreting the crazy curves as indicative of extinction. > >I don't believe you can justify that. > >The BaT effect as shown by your program INCREASES as you get further from >the emitting stars. The prediction does...but the observations suggest extinction kicks in. If a star is known to be 1000LYs away and the program exactly matches its curve at 20 LYs, then I am concluding that extinction has almost completely unified the c+v an c-v speeds by 20LYs. The same curve would be seen by all observers beyond 20 LYs. This is not a new idea. A fellow named Fox, in the 60s,( I think) literally made DeSitter's 'disproof' of the BaT extinct, with 'extinction'. All the facts are coming together nicely now. > >> I have emphasized that the shapes of the predicted brightness curves are >> the revealing feature.. ..not the actual parameter values. > >The parameters need to be correct, otherwise the brightness curves could be >coincidence. They could not possibly ALL be coincidence...along with the other evidence. >> >> Well, Bob, I'll ask you an intelligent question and give you one to ask >> ME in return. >> >> 1) How is it that the brightness curves of eclipsing binaries are not >> flat away from the 'eclipse dip'. > >We discussed that before. Gravity lens effect and refraction in the stellar >atmosphere. You can see how easy it is to find a 'reason' in astrophysics. It is a bit like economics. Anyone can come up with an unlikely theory, knowing full well that it cannot be tested easily, if at all. > >> 2) if extinction unifies light speed after a certain distance, (as Henri >> claims) how can the observed doppler shift still reveal different >> radial velocities? Similarly, if light arrives outside the Earth's >> atmosphere at different speeds but all these speeds are unified to c >> before it reaches the ground, how should doppler shift be affected? > >3) if extinction occurs soon after emission[or before], how will it change >the curves Henri's program produces? It brings them into line with the observed ones of course. That is the point. >4) If Einstein was right, how will it change the curves Henri's program >produces? No, you haven't got the picture Bob. >>> >>>There are several problems associated with that 'complication'. >> >> It is becoming simpler. I fixed the Pause/continue button. > >Good. 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. |