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 19 Jun 2005 15:42 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:vec9b1pru8shga2inuu5mrve6hlii79k4b(a)4ax.com: > 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. That is an unsupported postulate. Gravity lens multiple images have been observed. >>> .....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. Or one or more of your assumptions. > 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.. Postulate. ..... >>> 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. I have thought about it. The program crunches numbers. You tell it how to cruch and you decide what those numbers mean. IF the numbers are crunched the way you intend, then the numbers may or may not mean what you think they do. Even if they mean what you think, they may have no correspondence to reality. I have fitted equations to data many times. A good fit is necessary but not sufficient. If you put enough parameters in, you can fit any set of data. That does not mean that the parameters you get from the fit have any meaning. ..... >>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. You implied that your program predicted the extinction. Now you indicate that the curves stop looking as you would like after 20 LYs. When you take that to mean that extinction kicks in, you are adding a new postulate. > 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. Do the curves for all stars look correct at 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'. He found a rationalization to explain the lack of BaT observation. There is a simpler explaination for the lack of BaT observations. > All the facts are coming together nicely now. That remains to be seen. >>> 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. If ALL the parameters for a few dozen stars matched with the currently published data, then you could start saying 'they could not possibly all be coincidence'. ..... >>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. The explanation must be reasonable and match all known data. > 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. Exactly the point I have been trying to make about BaT and your excuses for why BaT and >>C and <<c photons have never been observed. >>> 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. A postulate. >>4) If Einstein was right, how will it change the curves Henri's program >>produces? > > No, you haven't got the picture Bob. Henri, When I calculated distance for extinction based on your estimate of extinction distance on earth at STP, I got over a million light years. I haven't done it, but we can go the other way and see what the extinction distance would be here, assuming the 20 LY extinction distance is correct. What ever the figure is, I would be willing to bet that we can achieve the necessary pressure in the laborator to simulate a distance of much less than 10 LY. That implies we should be able to observe sub/super luminal photons in the laboratory and by using your data[assuming it has any meaning] we know just what we need to do. -- 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
From: bz on 19 Jun 2005 17:18 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ota9b19tpitakk5298i2mt0mn8ihk6v780(a)4ax.com: > 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: >> ..... >>>>> 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. ..... >>>>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. >>> 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. We might as well assume it is, unless you have a reason to assume it isn't. ..... >>> 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.. ..... >>> >>> 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. The barycenter moves closer to the center of the more massive star. We also need to consider the radius of the stars which will be dependent on mass and density. >>>>> 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. Agreeing that you could be completely wrong it a big start! That is the approach a scientist must take! -- 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 19 Jun 2005 20:25 On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:18:38 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ota9b19tpitakk5298i2mt0mn8ihk6v780(a)4ax.com: > >>>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. > >We might as well assume it is, unless you have a reason to assume it isn't. > >.... >>>> 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.. >.... >>>> >>>> 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. > >The barycenter moves closer to the center of the more massive star. >We also need to consider the radius of the stars which will be dependent on >mass and density. For the purposes of gravitational force, homogeneous spherical masses act as though all their matter is located at their geometric centres. Not so for other shapes and density distributions. >>>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. > >Agreeing that you could be completely wrong it a big start! >That is the approach a scientist must take! How can you explain why the radial velocity of a cepheid is exactly that of a star moving in elliptical orbit, e=~0.25? Why should your choo-choo star puff elliptically? 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 19 Jun 2005 20:37 On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:42:30 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:vec9b1pru8shga2inuu5mrve6hlii79k4b(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. > >That is an unsupported postulate. >Gravity lens multiple images have been observed. Popssibly. How do you it wasn't just an optical lensing efect? >>>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. > >Or one or more of your assumptions. > >> 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.. > >Postulate. I am working on my program again right now. It will hopefully be improved even further. >>>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. > >I have thought about it. The program crunches numbers. You tell it how to >cruch and you decide what those numbers mean. > >IF the numbers are crunched the way you intend, then the numbers may or may >not mean what you think they do. > >Even if they mean what you think, they may have no correspondence to >reality. The equations are not manufactured by me. They describe the BaT principles. > >I have fitted equations to data many times. A good fit is necessary but not >sufficient. > >If you put enough parameters in, you can fit any set of data. That does not >mean that the parameters you get from the fit have any meaning. Nonsense. The equations in the program are quite specific and unique. >>>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. > >You implied that your program predicted the extinction. > >Now you indicate that the curves stop looking as you would like after 20 >LYs. > >When you take that to mean that extinction kicks in, you are adding a new >postulate. It isn't new. It is very old. I merely provide some support for the idea. > >> 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. > >Do the curves for all stars look correct at 20 LYs? I haven't had time to check...but I think the curves I DID examine for other stars were exaggerated at their known distances. > >> 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'. > >He found a rationalization to explain the lack of BaT observation. > >There is a simpler explaination for the lack of BaT observations. DeSitter was wrong. >> >> They could not possibly ALL be coincidence...along with the other >> evidence. > >If ALL the parameters for a few dozen stars matched with the currently >published data, then you could start saying 'they could not possibly all be >coincidence'. I will eventually get around to looking at more known cases. Right now I am trying to streamline the program and give it more power. >> You can see how easy it is to find a 'reason' in astrophysics. > >The explanation must be reasonable and match all known data. > >> 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. > >Exactly the point I have been trying to make about BaT and your excuses for >why BaT and >>C and <<c photons have never been observed. But the means have never been available to detect them. That's good enough for me. >> >> It brings them into line with the observed ones of course. That is the >> point. > >A postulate. > >>>4) If Einstein was right, how will it change the curves Henri's program >>>produces? >> >> No, you haven't got the picture Bob. > >Henri, > >When I calculated distance for extinction based on your estimate of >extinction distance on earth at STP, I got over a million light years. > >I haven't done it, but we can go the other way and see what the extinction >distance would be here, assuming the 20 LY extinction distance is correct. > >What ever the figure is, I would be willing to bet that we can achieve the >necessary pressure in the laborator to simulate a distance of much less >than 10 LY. Never. Your space has to be devoid of 'fields' as well as molecules. > >That implies we should be able to observe sub/super luminal photons in the >laboratory and by using your data[assuming it has any meaning] we know just >what we need to do. Don't bet on it. 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 20 Jun 2005 08:47
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:dv2cb1h306g3shfult21bpga6a656k11l5(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:18:38 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:ota9b19tpitakk5298i2mt0mn8ihk6v780(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>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. >> >>We might as well assume it is, unless you have a reason to assume it >>isn't. >> >>.... >>>>> 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.. >>.... >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >>The barycenter moves closer to the center of the more massive star. >>We also need to consider the radius of the stars which will be dependent >>on mass and density. > For the purposes of gravitational force, homogeneous spherical masses > act as though all their matter is located at their geometric centres. > Not so for other shapes and density distributions. Right. But distributed masses MOVE under the influence of the motion of the barycenter. Such motion disturbs the surface of the stars, making them non spherical. Deviations from sphericality produce visible effects in the spectral emission lines. You wont hame homogeneous spherical masses. You will have huge tidal forces causing drag and rapid changes in orbital parameters. This argues against long term stable periods for Henri Cepheids. >>>>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. >> >>Agreeing that you could be completely wrong it a big start! >>That is the approach a scientist must take! > > How can you explain why the radial velocity of a cepheid is exactly that > of a star moving in elliptical orbit, e=~0.25? > > Why should your choo-choo star puff elliptically? It doesn't. It oscillates with a radial velocity similar to that which would be observed in a star orbiting an impossible mass. Sanity checks on the numbers are necessary. -- 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 |